Condones delay in return filing attributable to belated advice by Accountant on complex issue
This ruling addresses condones delay in return filing attributable to belated advice by accountant on complex issue. Its application depends on the relevant assessment year, statutory text and binding jurisdiction.
Read complete searchable court text
[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Balaji Landmarks Llp, Erstwhile, ... vs Central Board Of Direct Taxes (Cbdt) And ... on 14 October, 2025
Author: B. P. Colabawalla
Bench: B. P. Colabawalla
2025:BHC-AS:46182-DB
1-AP- WP-16638-24.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
VINA
Digitally
signed by
VINA
ARVIND
WRIT PETITION NO. 16638 OF 2024
ARVIND KHADPE
KHADPE Date:
2025.10.23
12:05:25
+0530
Balaji Landmarks LLP Eartwhile ; Balaji
Landmarks Private Limited ..Petitioner
Versus
Central Board Of Direct Taxes (CBDT),
Through the Ministry of Finance,
Department of Revenue & Ors. .. Respondents
Percy Pardiwala, Senior Advocate, a/w Sanket Bora, Archena Shetty,
Vidhi Punmiya, Amiya Das i/b. SPCM Legal, Advocates for the
Petitioner.
Mr. Vikas Khanchandani, Advocate for the Respondents.
CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA &
AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, JJ.
DATE: OCTOBER 14, 2025
P. C.
1. The present Petition challenges an Order dated 7th August 2024
passed by Respondent No. 1, rejecting the Petitioner's Application for
condonation of delay in filing its return of income for the Assessment Year
2018-19. The Petitioner is also seeking appropriate directions/orders to get
Page 1 of 9
OCTOBER 14, 2025
Santosh Chabukswar- Court Steno
::: Uploaded on - 23/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 24/10/2025 22:28:39 :::
1-AP- WP-16638-24.doc
the delay of 5 months in the filing of the said return of income for the
A.Y.2018-19 condoned.
2. For the impugned A.Y., the due date for filing a return of income,
in which return an Assessee was returning a loss, under Section 139(3) read
with Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( for short "the Act") was 31st
October 2018. The Petitioner, however, filed its return belatedly on 30th
March 2019 within the time permissible under Section 139(4). Accordingly,
the Petitioner on 15th June 2023, in light of Respondent No.1's Circular No. 9
of 2015, filed an application for condonation of delay of 5 months under
Section 119(2)(b) of the Act. This Application was filed by the Petitioner
within the time stipulated in the said Circular, i.e. within a period of 6 years.
3. Respondent No. 1 refused to condone the delay on the following
grounds :-
a. the Petitioner failed to exercise due diligence to ensure timely
filing of its return of income ;
b. the Petitioner had ample time to ensure filing of its return of
income within time ;
c. the delay is caused by the Petitioner's lack of supervision and,
hence, this does not constitute genuine hardship.
Page 2 of 9
OCTOBER 14, 2025
Santosh Chabukswar- Court Steno
::: Uploaded on - 23/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 24/10/2025 22:28:39 :::
1-AP- WP-16638-24.doc
4. The case of the Petitioner is that the delay occurred because the
Petitioner's Chartered Accountant was not acquainted with the legal and
accounting treatment to be given apropos the compensation received in the
form of Transferable Development Rights (TDR) in lieu of compulsory
acquisition of certain immoveable property and, accordingly, the Petitioner
sought appropriate legal advice. The time taken for obtaining such views
caused the delay in filing of the return. In the application filed by the
Petitioner with Respondent No. 1, to the support of aforesaid contentions, the
Petitioner, inter alia, filed an affidavit of the said Chartered Accountant, the
legal opinions obtained and several judicial precedents in support of its
contentions. The Petitioner states that various advices were obtained by it
from May 2018 to March 2019, thereby establishing the substance, validity
and bona fides of the claim of the Petitioner and its Chartered Accountant.
5. It is further contended by the Petitioner that if the delay is not
condoned, then the Petitioner will suffer genuine hardship. It is stated that in
the impugned year, the Petitioner had suffered a loss, and as per Section 80
of the Act, in order to carry forward the loss to the subsequent years in
accordance with Section 72 of the Act, it is mandatory to file such a loss
return of income in accordance with Section 139(3) of the Act, which in turn
refers to the due date provided for in Section 139(1) of the Act. Accordingly,
Page 3 of 9
OCTOBER 14, 2025
Santosh Chabukswar- Court Steno
::: Uploaded on - 23/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 24/10/2025 22:28:39 :::
1-AP- WP-16638-24.doc
as the return of income was filed by the Petitioner beyond the due date of 31st
October 2018, the Petitioner is deprived of claiming the carry forward losses
suffered in A.Y. 2018-19 to the subsequent years as a result of the delay in
filing of its return. This deprivation, according to the Petitioner, is causing
hardship thereby, satisfying the pre-condition of Section 119(2)(b) of the Act.
Therefore, it is submitted that the delay ought to be condoned so as to treat
the Petitioner's return of income for A.Y.2018-19 as within limitation period.
6. Further, the Petitioner also argues that it is otherwise a law-
abiding Assessee and generally files its return on time. The Writ Petition
expressly avers that the Petitioner has filed its return of income since
A.Y.2013-14 onwards, within time, save and except the current Assessment
Year.
7. The learned Counsel for the Respondent, however, opposes the
Petition and contends that the Petitioner was negligent and, hence, the delay
ought not be condoned. He further submits that the various claims made by
the Petitioner in its return of income are also unverified and as such the
condonation of delay, if allowed, would result in allowance of such unverified
claims. According to him, the time limit to carry out an assessment for A.Y.
2018-19 has otherwise expired and, therefore, the delay ought not to be
Page 4 of 9
OCTOBER 14, 2025
Santosh Chabukswar- Court Steno
::: Uploaded on - 23/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 24/10/2025 22:28:39 :::
1-AP- WP-16638-24.doc
condoned else unverified claims of the Petitioner will be allowed leading to a
possible leakage of Revenue.
8. In response, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted
that the apprehension of the Revenue's Counsel that the delay in filing the
return filed by the Petitioner, if condoned will result in the Revenue being
prejudiced is unwarranted. This is because, Section 153(1B) extends the time
for completing the assessment inasmuch as it is provides that :-
"(1B). Notwithstanding anything in sub-section (1), where a
return is furnished in consequence of an order under clause (b) of
sub-section (2) of section 119, an order of assessment under
section 143 or section 144 may be made at any time before the
expiry of twelve months from the end of the financial year in
which such return was furnished."
Accordingly, an Order of assessment under Section 143 and 144
pursuant to a belated return where the delay is condoned in terms of Section
119(2)(b) can be made before the expiry of 12 months from the end of the
financial year if such return of income is furnished. Hence, the statute has
provided sufficient safeguards to ensure that the Revenue is not left remedy-
less. In the present case, if the delay is condoned, the Assessing Officer is
Page 5 of 9
OCTOBER 14, 2025
Santosh Chabukswar- Court Steno
::: Uploaded on - 23/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 24/10/2025 22:28:39 :::
1-AP- WP-16638-24.doc
empowered to make enquiries as to the correctness of the losses claimed in
such a return by the Petitioner.
9. Having heard both parties, we are of the view that the Petition
deserves to be allowed. We find merit in the arguments raised by the learned
Counsel for the Petitioner that grave hardship will be suffered by the
Petitioner if the delay is not condoned as genuine losses will not be permitted
to be carried forward. The delay in the present case is not due to any
negligence on the part of the Petitioner but due to inadequate advice by the
Chartered Account, which fact stands admitted by him in his affidavit. It is
settled law that where an Assessee takes a course of action bases on an
opinion of a professional, then, in that case, there is a reasonable cause for
the Assessee to act based on such advice and that such acts are to be regarded
as bona fide. In the present case, the Petitioner ought not to be put to a
considerable disadvantage as a result of belated advice given to it by the
Chartered Accountant, especially when the issue that was being grappled
with is fairly complex and for which there were no well settled judicial
precedents at the relevant time. In fact, paragraph 3 of the impugned order
states : "The field authorities have stated that it may be possible that
taxability of certain proceeds was not known to the CA and the assessee and
that the CA sought legal opinion about the same, which was beyond its
Page 6 of 9
OCTOBER 14, 2025
Santosh Chabukswar- Court Steno
::: Uploaded on - 23/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 24/10/2025 22:28:39 :::
1-AP- WP-16638-24.doc
control in filing the ROI within the due date. The field authorities have
further stated that a more diligent and disciplined taxpayer may have sought
the legal opinion on time and could have filed its ROI within the due date,
more so, if it wanted to carry forward the losses of the A.Y.2018-19 to
subsequent years". The Petitioner will otherwise suffer genuine hardship in
such a case. Further, the apprehension of the learned Counsel for the
Revenue is appropriately taken care of by the provisions of Section 153(1B) of
the Act. The AO will have 12 months from the end of 31st March 2026 to
complete an assessment, i.e. he will have time till 31st March 2027 to frame
an assessment under Section 143/144 of the Act in accordance with law.
10. We had also put it the learned Counsel for the Petitioner as to
why the application under Section 119(2)(b) was filed only on June 15, 2023,
i.e. more than four years after the return was filed. The learned Counsel had
clarified that initially, that the Petitioner was not aware of the procedure of
119(2)(b) and profits of A.Ys.2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22 were not enough
to adjust the huge losses of A.Y.2018-19 amounting to Rs.4,47,30,811/-. Basis
the forecasts then prevailing the Petitioner was not anticipating the loss for
the A.Y. 2018-19 being set off within a period of eight years and, therefore,
even if the condonation of delay in filing the loss return was allowed, the
determination of the loss pursuant to the belated return may have turned out
Page 7 of 9
OCTOBER 14, 2025
Santosh Chabukswar- Court Steno
::: Uploaded on - 23/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 24/10/2025 22:28:39 :::
1-AP- WP-16638-24.doc
to be an exercise in futility. It was only in June 2023 when the Petitioner
realised that the business conditions had improved for A.Y. 2022-23 and
there were huge profits and there was a possibility of the loss being set off,
and was not able to set off the same against the losses for A.Y. 2018-19, the
Petitioner file the Application with Respondent No. 1. We are satisfied with
the aforesaid explanation.
11. In view of the foregoing discussion, we pass the following order:-
ORDER
(a) The impugned Order dated 7th August 2024 passed by Respondent No. 1 under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act is hereby quashed and set aside.
(b) The delay in filing the return of income for the A.Y.2018-19 is hereby condoned. The ROI filed on 30th March 2019 shall be treated to be a return filed in accordance with Section 153(1B) and the time frame to complete the assessment mentioned therein shall apply.
(c) The Revenue is directed to frame the assessment in accordance with law.
Page 8 of 9
OCTOBER 14, 2025 Santosh Chabukswar- Court Steno ::: Uploaded on - 23/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 24/10/2025 22:28:39 ::: 1-AP- WP-16638-24.doc
(d) All rights and contentions of the Petitioner as well as of the Revenue are kept open.
12. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms of the Writ Petition is also disposed of in terms thereof. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
13. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/ Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order. [AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.] Page 9 of 9 OCTOBER 14, 2025 Santosh Chabukswar- Court Steno ::: Uploaded on - 23/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 24/10/2025 22:28:39 :::
Condones delay in return filing attributable to belated advice by Accountant on complex issue
WRIT PETITION NO. 16638 OF 2024, decided by Bombay High Court on 2025-10-14.
Yes. The complete searchable public court text appears on this page and in the downloadable local reference PDF.
Verify the assessment year, applicable statutory text, territorial and appellate jurisdiction, and any later appeal, review, stay or contrary binding authority.