Manoj Atree Through Lrs Suman Atree & Ors v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 10

$~89 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +W.P.(C) 6478/2025 MANOJ ATREE THROUGH LRS SUMAN ATREE & ORS. .....PetitionersThrough:MrPraveenChauhanwithMrSarthak, Advocates. versus PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 10 .....RespondentThrough:Mr Apoorv Aggarwal, JSC. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRUHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA O R D E R%15.05.2025 C.M. APPL. 29530/2025 1.Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2.The application is disposed of. W.P.(C) 6478/2025 3.The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an order dated24.09.2020 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax whereby the petitioner’s application for condonation of delay to file arevised return is rejected. The petitioner states that the land owned by himin Village Chandwali, Tehsil Ballabhgarh, District Faridabad, Haryana wasacquired for public purpose.The petitioner had paid income tax on the interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for theAssessment Years [AYs] 2007-08 to 2010-11. On 22.04.2016, the petitionerfiled a representation claiming refund of the tax payable on interest receivedon compensation for acquisition of land. Thereafter, on 22.02.2018, thepetitioner filed separate applications for each Assessment year requesting forrelaxation under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act [Act] for refundamount. The petitioner periodically continued to make representations. Thepetitioner was afforded a hearing by the PCIT on 02.09.2019. However, onthe petitioner’s request for application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Actwas not decided. In the aforesaid context, the petitioner filed a writ petitionbefore this court being WP(C) 4489/2020 which was disposed of. The saidpetition was listed before the coordinate bench of this court along with otherconnected petitions on 23.07.2020. Whereas it is contended on behalf of thepetitioner that no tax is payable on the interest received on compensation forcompulsory acquisition of land. 4.The learned counsel appearing for the Revenue contested the same.The Revenue also contested the said petition on the ground that theapplication filed by the petitioner and others similarly placed persons werebarred by limitation in terms of the Circular dated 09.06.2015. This courtdid not address any of the said objections and confined the writ petition tothe grievance that the application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act couldnot be disposed of. Accordingly, this court directed the respondent to decidethe applications filed by the petitioner as well as the persons who arepetitioners in other connected matters within a period of eight weeks inaccordance with law. 5.The impugned order was passed pursuant to the said directions; however, it is noted that the petitioner had not taken any steps to challengethe said order to file the present petition. 6.We do not consider it apposite to entertain the present petition in viewof the inordinate delay which is almost five years from the date on which theimpugned order was passed. We are also considering that the petitioner’scase is for seeking refund of the tax that was paid in the AYs 2007-08 to2010-11 which is more than fourteen years from date. 7.The petition is accordingly dismissed. VIBHU BAKHRU, J MAY 15, 2025/tr TEJAS KARIA, J Click here to check corrigendum, if any