Mindworx Advisory Private Limited V. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-4 & Ors.

W.P.(C)/1717/2026

AI Insights

The case involves Mindworx Advisory Private Limited, the petitioner, who challenged the rejection of their application for condonation of delay in filing a revised income tax return by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-4. The rejection was based on the grounds that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify the delay. The petitioner argued that the delay was due to the non-cooperation and negligence of their then Chartered Accountant, who had resigned prior to the filing. The Income Tax Department contended that the petitioner did not provide all relevant materials to justify the delay. The High Court found that the petitioner had a valid reason for the delay, primarily due to the negligence of the Chartered Accountant, and thus set aside the rejection of the application.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 834740 (HC-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 06-02-2026
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: ABHISHEK MARATHA; APOORV AGARWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ANKIT MAJUMDER
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Income Tax Return; Revised return; TDS credit; Negligence of Chartered Accountant
• Section: 119(2)(b)

Judgement Text

"$~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1717/2026 & CM APPL. 8407/2026 MINDWORX ADVISORY PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ankit Majumder, Adv. versus PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-4 & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, SSC, Mr. Apoorv Agarwal, JSC, and Ms. Nupur Sharma, Mr. Gaurav Singh, Mr. Bhanukaran Singh Jodha, Ms. Muskaan Goel, Mr. Himanshu Gaur, Mr. Gaurav Kumar Arya and Ms. Pushpag Shah, Advs. Mr. Ranjeet Pandey, Senior Panel Counsel for UOI CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR O R D E R % 06.02.2026 1. Instant writ petition questions the correctness and legality of the impugned order dated 12.11.2025, passed by the Principal Commissioner Income Tax (PCIT), Delhi-4 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Authority’) whereby the petitioner’s application dated 18.07.2025 under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1961’) seeking condonation of delay in filing revised return for Assessment Year 2023-24 has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-assessee submitted that despite noticing the fact that email ID of the assessee’s the then Chartered This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/02/2026 at 12:56:59 Printed from counselvise.com Accountant (CA) was used for filing the Income Tax Return (ITR) so also the fact that he could not be reached out and that he resigned on 24.09.2024, the authority and wrongly rejected the petitioner’s application for condonation of delay in filing the revised ITR. 3. Mr. Abhishek Maratha, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department submitted that it was incumbent upon the petitioner to have placed the relevant evidence and since he had failed to produce all relevant materials, the Authority was justified in rejecting the application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act of 1961. Because, the material that was made available with him did not constitute a valid reason. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the material on record, we are of the view that the fact that amount of Rs.3,10,608/- was deducted from his income and credit of TDS of the said amount is still lying unclaimed, the rejection may be for whatever reason, cannot be sustained. No assessee would let his credit lying as TDS go waste unless there are compelling reasons. It is a case where the petitioner was handicapped because of the non-cooperation or negligence of his Chartered Accountant. 5. We therefore, set aside the impugned order dated 12.11.2025 and direct the authority to consider the petitioner’s application afresh. 6. Petitioner shall be free to file additional documents and evidence in support of his claim within a period of thirty days from today. 7. While deciding the petitioner’s application, the Authority shall also consider the representation and the additional documents, which the petitioner would be placing as has been placed in the present writ petition. He shall pass an order in accordance with law, without being prejudiced by This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/02/2026 at 12:56:59 Printed from counselvise.com the fact that on earlier occasion, petitioner’s application has been rejected by the Authority. 8. With these observations, the writ petition stands allowed. 9. The pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. 10. In case the Authority feels that the petitioner should be given a personal hearing, the same shall be given. DINESH MEHTA, J VINOD KUMAR, J FEBRUARY 6, 2026/cd This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/02/2026 at 12:56:59 Printed from counselvise.com "