Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Ashank Clouds Private Limited vs Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax … on 7 April, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:15483-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4966/2026
Ashank Clouds Private Limited, Having Its Address At Flat No 50,
Audiotors Enclave Narsinghpura, Jagatpura, Jaipur 303905
Through Its Director Smt. Madhu Khandelwal Aged About 44
Years Wife Of Virendra Khandelwal Resident Of 528, Subhash
Colony, Jaipur 302016
----Petitioner
Versus
Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jaipur-2, New Central
Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur-302005
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shankar Lal Poddar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Pathak
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN
Order
07/04/2026
1. The instant D.B. civil writ petition is preferred by the
petitioner aggrieved from order dated 19.11.2025 (Annexure-9)
passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-2
(PCIT) under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
(hereinafter referred as ‘the Act of 1961’).
2. The instant writ petition is preferred by the petitioner with
following prayer:-
“(a) Quash and set-aside the impugned order dated
19.11.2025 (Annexure 9) passed u/S. 119(2)(b) of
the Act and consequentially allow the petitioners
application seeking condonation of delay in filing of
(Uploaded on 24/04/2026 at 12:20:39 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/04/2026 at 01:03:58 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:15483-DB] (2 of 5) [CW-4966/2026]Income Tax Return for the assessment year 2022-
2023;
(b) to allow the Writ Petition and award costs of
this petition;
(c) for such further and other reliefs, as this
Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
nature and circumstances of the case.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance upon
order dated 24.01.2019 in case of G.V. Infosutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. : W.P. (C)
No.8436/2018 passed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High
Court, submits that Section 119 of the Act of 1961 allows the
respondent to condone the delay if same is neither intentional,
willful, nor deliberate. He further submits that the petitioner has
submitted sufficient reason for condonation of delay but same was
not considered by the respondent despite genuine hardship of the
petitioner. He further submits that the application was rejected in
a mechanical manner and without opportunity of hearing. He also
submits that the respondent was duty-bound to consider the
ground raised by the petitioner and on basis of the ground, duty
bound to address the reasons as assigned by the petitioner.
4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondent and submitted that the
petitioner was given an opportunity to substantiate the reasons of
delay but he failed to substantiate the reasons so as to enable the
respondent to condone the delay. He further placed reliance upon
judgment dated 20.11.2025 in case of Sanjay Khurana vs
Income Tax Department Ministry of Finance : W.P.(C) No.
(Uploaded on 24/04/2026 at 12:20:39 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/04/2026 at 01:03:58 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:15483-DB] (3 of 5) [CW-4966/2026]
17379/2025 passed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court.
At last, he submits that the ground for condonation of delay is
ignorance of law and same is unexcusable.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material placed on record.
6. Instant writ petition is filed aggrieved from order dated
19.11.2025 for Assessment Year 2022-23 passed by PCIT whereby
he refused to condone delay in filing Return for year 2022-23. In
the order dated 19.11.2025 (Annexure-9), the contentions of
petitioner were mentioned that the petitioner was unaware about
TDS deduction and non-filing of ITR which resulted into additional
loss in unclaimed TDS. The petitioner has sought permission to file
ITR for the Financial Year 2021-22 (AY 2022-23). The PCIT has
called the report from CIT Range-6, Jaipur, and then considered
the prayer. The claim of the petitioner is that they were unaware
about the fact that ITR needs to be filed. The report indicated that
the assessee did not face any genuine hardship in filing ITR and it
is simply ignorance of law.
7. Section 119(2)(a) of the Act of 1961 allows the CBDT to
relax strict enforcement of certain provisions in public interest or
to avoid genuine hardship applicable to classes of taxpayers or
specific cases.
8. Section 119(2)(b) of the Act of 1961 authorizes CBDT to
direct authorities to admit delayed claim for exemption, deduction,
refund from carry forward losses or other relief even after expiry
of time limit, if delay was due to circumstances beyond the
taxpayer’s control.
(Uploaded on 24/04/2026 at 12:20:39 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/04/2026 at 01:03:58 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:15483-DB] (4 of 5) [CW-4966/2026]
9. The circumstances considered for condonation normally are
illness, natural calamities or any other ground such as strike or
lockout or even technical issues, if verified. To seek condonation,
an application is required to be filed before the jurisdictional
authority and the authority after verification about genuineness
may direct assessing authority for scrutiny.
10. The petitioner has claimed ignorance of law and same is not
a valid ground of condonation of delay. A Division Bench of Delhi
High Court in case of Manjit Singh Dhaliwal Vs. Commissioner
Of Income Tax International Taxation : W.P.(C) No.
19589/2020 while placing reliance upon judgment in case of
Puneet Rastogi v. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-
tax (International Taxation) and another :(2023) 454 ITR
37 has held that on the principle of “ignorantia juris non excusat”,
i.e. the ignorance of law is not an excuse.
11. Again, considering the issue in case of Sanjay Khurana v.
Income Tax Department Ministry of Finance : 2025 SCC
OnLine Del 8910 held that ignorance of law or dependence on an
advisor is generally not accepted as sufficient cause. “Genuine
Hardship” typically requires unexpected or unavoidable
circumstances beyond the assessee’s reasonable control. The
burden lies upon the petitioner (assessee) to prove and establish
bonafide with evidence and routine default like ignorance are not
condonable under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act of 1961.
12. Here in this case, the petitioner has failed to show genuine
hardship means real, unavoidable financial or practical difficulties
arising out of extraordinary circumstances beyond her control.
Therefore, the petitioner has failed to establish her case and in
(Uploaded on 24/04/2026 at 12:20:39 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/04/2026 at 01:03:58 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:15483-DB] (5 of 5) [CW-4966/2026]
such circumstances, the judgment in the case of G.V.
Infosutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income
Tax, (supra) is not applicable.
13. The reason for delay was ‘ignorance of law’ and same was
rightly disallowed by the respondent. The petitioner has failed to
substantiate genuine grounds for condolation of delay in
submission of ITR, therefore, no case is made out in favour of the
petitioner.
14. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the writ petition
preferred by the petitioner is hereby dismissed with pending
application, if any.
(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J
MR/84
(Uploaded on 24/04/2026 at 12:20:39 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/04/2026 at 01:03:58 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
