Anil Kumar Mittal v. Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Tax),Delhi (2) & Anr

$~101 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(C) 5184/2025 & CM Nos.23589/2025 & 23590/2025 ANIL KUMAR MITTAL.....PetitionerThrough:Mr. Drona Negi & Mr. Devvrat Tiwari,Advs. Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAX),DELHI (2) & ANR......Respondent Through:Mr. Shlok Chandra, Ms. Naincy Jain,Ms. Madhavi Shukla & Mr. UjjwalJain, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRUHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA O R D E R %23.04.2025 1.The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning anorder dated 06.09.2024 [impugned order] passed by respondent no.1 underSection 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [Act] rejecting the petitioner’sapplication for condonation of delay in filing his return of income in respectof Assessment Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 and 2023-24. 2.It is the petitioner’s case that he is a Non Resident Indian andhas been residing in Egypt for more than twenty years. The petitioner statesthat he was under the belief that he did not require to file his return of incomein India. The petitioner states that during the previous years, relevant to theassessment years as set out above, the petitioner had earned interest on fixeddeposits and on the maturity proceeds from the Insurance Policy. Accordingto the petitioner, the tax deducted at source on the said income exceeds theamount of tax payable on the said income and therefore the petitioner nowseeks relaxation of the statutory timelines for filing his return, at this belatedstage. 3.The petitioner also seeks to avail the benefit of the slab rates asapplicable to an individual.Since there is inordinate delay in filing thereturns, the petitioner filed an application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Actseeking condonation of delay in filing the return. 4.The learned Commissioner of Income Tax rejected thepetitioner’s application on the ground that it was not a case of genuinehardship. 5.We are unable to accept that the impugned order is perverse orunreasonable warranting any interference by this court under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India. This is not a case where the petitioner could not filehis returns of income on account of any genuine hardship. It is a case wherethe petitioner has been negligent in doing so. 6.In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed. Pendingapplications are also dismissed. VIBHU BAKHRU, J TEJAS KARIA, J APRIL 23, 2025‘gsr’Click here to check corrigendum, if any