Allowed¶27

Pushpa Geethan Gada v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 4, Mumbai

Bombay HC1 Jul 2025WP/2094/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; Section 119(2)(b) Income Tax Act 1961; Section 139(1) return; approximately 15 hours delay; deceased assessee; legal heir/legal representative; quashing of order dated 14th February 2025; intimation under Section 143(1) dated 10th May 2021 quashed; justice oriented approach versus pedantic approach; Bombay High Court Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction; Writ Petition No. 2094 of 2025; rule made absolute; no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

Rule made absolute: impugned order dated 14th February 2025 and intimation under Section 143(1) dated 10th May 2021 quashed and set aside; delay in filing the Income Tax Return under Section 139(1) condoned; Writ Petition disposed of in those terms with no order as to costs. ¶27

Pushpa Geethan Gada vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 4… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of approximately 15 hours in filing the Income Tax Return under Section 139(1) by the deceased Assessee ought to be condoned under Section 119(2)(b) of the IT Act. +1 more

¶21

Court's answer

The explanation given for the approximately 15-hour delay in filing the Income Tax Return is more than adequate to condone the same; in the facts of the present case there is absolutely no justification for not condoning the delay in filing the return by the deceased Assessee.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

Authorities considering applications under Section 119(2)(b) ought to take a justice oriented approach rather than a pedantic one.

¶22

Key takeaways

The impugned order dated 14th February 2025 rejecting the condonation application, as well as the intimation under Section 143(1) dated 10th May 2021, are quashed and set aside.ratio¶23
The delay in filing the Income Tax Return of the deceased Assessee under Section 139(1) of the IT Act is condoned by the Court.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction), Writ Petition No. 2094 of 2025 — Pushpa Geethan Gada, Legal Heir/Legal Representative of the deceased assessee Geethan Damji Gada v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Mumbai & Ors. (B.P. Colabawalla & Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, JJ.; September 02, 2025): Petition allowed. The Court held the explanation for an approximately 15-hour delay in filing the return under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to be 'more than adequate' and found 'absolutely no justification' for refusing condonation, reiterating that authorities deciding applications under Section 119(2)(b) must take a justice oriented rather than pedantic approach. The Court quashed and set aside the order dated 14th February 2025 rejecting the deceased assessee's condonation application and also quashed the intimation under Section 143(1) dated 10th May 2021, itself condoning the delay in filing the return. Rule made absolute; no order as to costs.

¶1

91.wp.2094.2025.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.2094 OF 2025

¶4

Pushpa Geethan Gada (Legal Heir/Legal Representative of Geethan Damji Gada)

¶5

.. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Mumbai & Ors.

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

Mr.Devendra H. Jain a/w Shashank Ajay Mehta i/b Radha Halbe, Advocates for the Petitioner.

¶10

Digitally signed by UTKARSH UTKARSH KAKASAHEB KAKASAHEB BHALERAO BHALERAO Date: 2025.09.09 18:20:44 +0530

¶11

Mr.Ravi Rattesar, Advocate for the Respondents.

¶12

CORAM : B. P. COLABAWALLA &

¶13

FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 02, 2025

¶14

P. C.

¶15

1. Rule. Respondents waive service. With the consent of the parties, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.

¶16

2. The above Writ Petition has been filed to quash and set

¶17

aside the impugned order dated 14^th February 2025 rejecting the deceased Assessee’s condonation application in filing its return under

¶18

Page 1 of 3 SEPTEMBER 02, 2025

¶19

Utkarsh

¶20

91.wp.2094.2025.doc

¶21

Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The reason for the delay (which is approximately 15 hours) has been explained in paragraph 4 of the Application filed by the deceased Assessee under Section 119(2)(b) of the IT Act. The Application filed under Section 119(2)(b) is on record at Exhibit-F to the Petition.

¶22

3. We find that the explanation given for the delay is more than adequate to condone the same. Time and again, this Court has taken a view that the Authorities whilst considering the application under Section 119(2)(b) ought to take a justice oriented approach rather than a pedantic one. In the facts of the present case, we find absolutely no justification for not condoning the delay in filing the Income Tax Return by the deceased Assessee.

¶23

4. In these circumstances, we hereby quash and set aside the impugned order dated 14^th February 2025 as well as the intimation under Section 143(1) dated 10^th May 2021. We also hereby condone the delay in filing the Income Tax Return of the deceased Assessee under Section 139(1) of the IT Act.

¶24

Page 2 of 3 SEPTEMBER 02, 2025

¶25

Utkarsh

¶26

91.wp.2094.2025.doc

¶27

5. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms and the Writ

¶28

Petition is also disposed of in terms thereof. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶29

6. 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.

¶30

[FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.] [B.P.COLABAWALLA, J.]

¶31

Page 3 of 3 SEPTEMBER 02, 2025

¶32

Utkarsh

Pushpa Geethan Gada v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 4, Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushpa Geethan Gada v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 4, Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Trucap Finance Limited vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(3)(1)

Haresh Ravji Majethia vs National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi

Nath Industries Limited vs Union of India

The Bombay St Xaviers Society 2022 23 vs Commissioner of Income tax (Exemption)

Trent Limited vs National Faceless Appeal Centre through Principal Chief Commissioner of Income tax (Nfac) And Ors.

Vedini Vinimay Private Limited vs Union of India