Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited V. Union Of India and The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 Raipur and The Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Circle -1 (1), Raipur

WPT/18/2026

AI Insights

The case involves the Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, which sought judicial relief after its application for condoning a delay in filing an income tax return was rejected by the tax authorities. The petitioner argued that the delay was due to genuine hardships, which were not adequately considered by the authorities in their decision. The court found that the reasons provided by the petitioner were not considered by the respondent authority and thus quashed the rejection order, remitting the matter back for a fresh decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 834944 (HC-CHHATTISGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 05-02-2026
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: AJAY KUMRANI
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAJESHWARA RAO
• Keywords: Delay in filing; Genuine hardship; Income Tax; Writ of Certiorari; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 119(2)(b)

Judgement Text

"1 2026:CGHC:6446 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPT No. 18 of 2026  Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited Through Its A G M, Office In-Charge, Mr. Santosh Khaparde, Having Its Registered Office At Block - 7- A, 2nd Floor, Sector- 24, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G.- 492018 ... Petitioner versus 1. Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, Central Board Of Direct Taxes (C B D T), North Block, New Delhi- 110001 2. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 Raipur, Aaykar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Circle -1 (1), Aaykar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. S. Rajeshwara Rao, Advocate For Respondents No. 2 & 3 : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Amit Chaudhari, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 05.02 .2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petitioner seeking following relief :- “10.1 Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 14.11.2025 passed by Respondent No.2 rejecting the Petitioner's application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; 10.2 Issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate direction directing the Respondents to condone Printed from counselvise.com 2 the delay of 44 days in; 10.3 Issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate direction to the respondents to accept petitioners return for Assessment Year 2024-25 that could not be filed due to above genuine difficulties. 10.4 Pass such other writ(s), order(s), or direction(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 2. Mr. Rao would fairly submit that the petitioner/company could not file its return of income for the assessment year 2024-25. He would submit that thereafter the petitioner made application under Section 119 (2) (b) in form 10 – IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “Act, 1961”) before the respondent authorities with delay of 44 days assigning various reasons including genuine hardship. He would contend that the respondent No. 2 rejected the application vide order dated 14.11.2025 without taking into consideration reasons assigned in application. Mr. Rao would submit that the authority concerned ought to have examined the reasons assigned in the application moved under Section 119 (2)(b) of the Act, 1961. He would contend that the order passed by the respondent No. 2 may be set-aside and matter may be remitted back to the authority concerned to decide it afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Ajay Kumrani would submit that the petitioner/company failed to file its return for assessment year 2024-25. He would submit that an application under Section 119 (2) (b) in form 10 - IC of the Act, 1961 was moved with delay of 44 days without assigning sufficient reasons; therefore, the authority concerned rejected the said application. Printed from counselvise.com 3 He would submit that the difficulties like staff shortage and delayed audit are not genuine reason to condone the delay. He would submit that the petitioner herein failed to demonstrate genuine hardship in moving application under Section 119 (2) (b) in filing form 10 – IC, therefore, the authority concerned rightly rejected it. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. Taking into consideration the submission advanced by Mr. Rao and reasons assigned in the application moved under Section 119 (2) (b) of the Act, 1961, it appears that the petitioner has assigned various reasons for non submission of Form 10 – IC within prescribed period but the authority concerned failed to consider those grounds, therefore, the order passed by respondent No. 2 dated 14.11.2025 is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the said authority to consider the application moved by the petitioner afresh strictly in accordance with the law. The authority concerned shall decide the application after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and shall consider the reasons assigned in the application. 6. With the aforesaid observation(s), and direction(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant Printed from counselvise.com "