Recently, the Delhi High Court held that ignorance of Indian tax laws does not amount to “genuine hardship” for condoning delay in filing an Income Tax Return under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, while rejecting a writ petition filed by a Canadian citizen. Declining to interfere with the tax authority’s refusal to condone a delayed return for Assessment Year 2020–21, the Court bluntly observed that “ignorance of law is no excuse”.
The case arose from an application seeking condonation of delay in filing an Income Tax Return for AY 2020–21, which was submitted only in June 2025, nearly five years after the statutory due date. The petitioner, a Canadian citizen and non-resident Indian, had earned taxable income in India during the relevant year, primarily from the sale of an immovable property valued at Rs. 2,00,16,550, along with nominal bank interest income of Rs. 19,246.
Although tax had been deducted at source by the buyers, the petitioner failed to file the return within time and later approached the Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-01 under Section 119(2)(b), citing lack of awareness of Indian tax laws, COVID-related travel restrictions, health issues, and absence of professional guidance. The application was rejected by an order issued in September 2025, prompting the filing of the present writ petition.
The Petitioner argued that the delay was neither deliberate nor mala fide. Counsel submitted that the petitioner, being a senior citizen residing abroad, had no prior exposure to Indian tax compliance, especially since his income in earlier years did not cross the taxable threshold. It was contended that the pandemic-induced travel restrictions, coupled with health issues and the execution of the property transaction through a power of attorney, prevented timely awareness of tax implications. Reliance was placed on judicial precedents advocating a liberal interpretation of the phrase genuine hardship, with emphasis on substantial justice over technical defaults.
The Respondent, however, opposed the plea, asserting that the power of condonation under Section 119(2)(b) is meant to be exercised sparingly and only in extraordinary situations. It was submitted that the grounds cited were vague and unsupported by cogent material, particularly when the Income Tax Department’s e-filing portal remained accessible globally. The respondent further argued that ignorance of tax deduction at source or capital gains liability cannot justify prolonged inaction, especially where statutory timelines are clearly prescribed.
The Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Vinod Kumar concurred with the reasoning adopted by the tax authority and subjected the petitioner’s explanations to close scrutiny. The Court noted that Section 119(2)(b) empowers condonation only to mitigate genuine hardship and not to dilute statutory discipline on mere assertions. Rejecting the plea of lack of awareness, the Court held that “The plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner being an illiterate person is not aware of the tax laws of this country, is not appealing. On the principle of ignorantia juris non excusat, i.e. ignorance of law is no excuse.”
The Bench also dismissed the reliance on COVID-related restrictions, observing that physical presence in India was not a prerequisite for compliance, as returns could be filed electronically from anywhere. It endorsed the Commissioner’s finding that the surgeries cited by the petitioner had taken place over a decade earlier and could not reasonably explain the delay. The Court reiterated that statutory timelines have to be adhered to and that extension of time cannot be claimed “on mere asking and on the basis of vague assertions without proof”
The Court ultimately dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner had failed to establish any genuine hardship or reasonable cause warranting exercise of discretion under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act.
Case Title: Manjit Singh Dhaliwal v. Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation
Case No.: W.P. (C) 19589/2025
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vinod Kumar
Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Nikita Thapar
Advocate for the Respondent: SSC Debesh Panda, JSCs Zehra Khan, and Vikramaditya Singh, Advs. Nivedita, A. Shankar, Ravicha Sharma
Read Judgment@ Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
