Introduction:

In Manjit Singh Dhaliwal v. Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) 01 New Delhi [W.P.(C) 19589/2025], the Delhi High Court addressed the scope of condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, specifically examining whether ignorance of Indian tax laws or COVID-19-related travel restrictions can constitute “genuine hardship” sufficient to justify late filing of Income Tax Returns (ITR). The petitioner, a Canadian citizen, had earned income taxable in India but failed to file his ITR within the prescribed statutory period. Subsequently, he approached the Income Tax authorities seeking condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b), asserting that his failure to file on time arose due to unawareness of Indian tax requirements, inability to travel to India during pandemic-related restrictions, and lack of professional guidance. Ms. Nikita Thapar appeared for the petitioner, while Mr. Debesh Panda, SSC, Ms. Zehra Khan, JSC, Mr. Vikramaditya Singh, JSC, Ms. Nivedita, Ms. A. Shankar, and Ms. Ravicha Sharma represented the respondents. The division bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar meticulously examined the statutory framework, judicial precedents, and principles governing condonation of delay, and ultimately dismissed the petition, holding that ignorance of law and COVID-related travel difficulties do not constitute sufficient grounds for relief under Section 119(2)(b).

Arguments:

The petitioner contended that his inability to comply with the filing timeline arose from factors beyond his control. He argued that as a non-resident foreign national, he was unaware of the nuances of Indian tax laws, including obligations relating to Income Tax Returns, TDS, and capital gains implications. Additionally, he claimed that the restrictions imposed due to the COVID-19 pandemic prevented him from traveling to India to seek professional assistance, and he lacked proper guidance to navigate the Indian taxation system. The petitioner’s counsel asserted that these factors cumulatively constituted “genuine hardship” warranting exercise of discretionary powers by the Income Tax authorities under Section 119(2)(b) to condone the delay. He emphasized the extraordinary nature of the global pandemic, and argued that the operational difficulties faced, including disrupted communication and limited access to local resources, should be considered as mitigating circumstances for the delayed filing.

The respondents, represented by the Commissioner of Income Tax and supporting counsel, opposed the petition and submitted that Section 119(2)(b) grants powers to the tax authorities to condone delay only in extraordinary circumstances and that statutory compliance is expected irrespective of an individual’s ignorance of law. They contended that the petitioner’s inability to understand Indian tax obligations, lack of professional guidance, or COVID-related travel constraints, without evidence of exceptional circumstances, could not constitute valid grounds to invoke discretion under Section 119(2)(b). The respondents emphasized that the e-filing system of the Income Tax Department remained functional during the pandemic, enabling taxpayers to comply with their statutory obligations remotely. Furthermore, reliance was placed on established judicial principles, particularly the maxim ignorantia juris non excusat—ignorance of law is no excuse—to underline that the petitioner’s arguments based on lack of knowledge of Indian tax law were legally untenable. The respondents also referred to the decision in Puneet Rastogi v. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (International Taxation) and another (2023), which emphasized that mere assertions of ignorance or difficulty in accessing professional assistance do not amount to “genuine hardship” sufficient to justify condonation of delay under the Income Tax Act.

Court’s Judgment:

The division bench of the Delhi High Court, comprising Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar, dismissed the petition and rejected the petitioner’s contentions. The Court held that Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is designed to allow condonation of delay only in extraordinary circumstances and that the power to condone delay is discretionary, not automatic, and cannot be invoked on vague or unsubstantiated grounds. The Court observed that statutory timelines prescribed for filing ITRs must be adhered to strictly, and ignorance of the law or personal inability to comply does not constitute valid justification for condonation. Emphasizing the settled legal principle of ignorantia juris non excusat, the bench observed, “The plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner being an illiterate person is not aware of the tax laws of this country, is not appealing. On the principle of ignorantia juris non excusat, i.e., ignorance of law is no excuse.” The Court further rejected the submission regarding COVID-19-related travel restrictions, noting that the petitioner had alternative means to comply with statutory obligations, including the Income Tax Department’s e-filing portal, which remained operational during the pandemic, and that temporary travel constraints do not amount to extraordinary hardship warranting condonation.

Relying on the precedent in Puneet Rastogi v. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (International Taxation) and another (2023), the Court reiterated that Section 119(2)(b) powers are to be exercised sparingly and only where a taxpayer demonstrates genuine, exceptional, and provable circumstances preventing compliance. The Court emphasized that the petitioner had failed to substantiate any extraordinary circumstance that would justify deviation from the statutory mandate. Mere assertions of unfamiliarity with Indian tax laws, coupled with logistical difficulties during COVID-19, were held insufficient to qualify as exceptional or extraordinary. The bench further clarified that statutory limits are fixed by Parliament, and adherence is mandatory, and that condonation powers are not intended to mitigate routine non-compliance due to ignorance or personal inconvenience. The Court concluded that allowing condonation on the petitioner’s grounds would undermine the statutory framework and open the door to indiscriminate claims of delay based on lack of knowledge or minor hardships, which is impermissible in law. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was denied relief to condone delay in filing the ITR under Section 119(2)(b).