Kerala High Court
Eins & Erste Health Care vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 4 February, 2026
2026:KER:9571
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
TH
WEDNESDAY, THE 4 DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 15TH MAGHA, 1947
WP(C) NO.15324 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
EINS & ERSTE HEALTH CARE,
1/405-A9,A10 IRINGALLUR, KOZHIKODE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,
DR. ANEEZ K ARAKKAL, PIN - 673014
BY ADVS.SMT G.MINI
SRI.P.J.ANILKUMAR
SRI.P.S.SREE PRASAD
SRI.SATYAJITH K. WARRIER
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
MANANCHIRA,KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673001
2 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
MANANCHIRA,KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673001
BY ADVS.SRI.P.G.JAYASHANKAR
SRI.NAVANEETH.N.NATH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
04.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.15324 of 2025
2
2026:KER:9571
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 4th day of February, 2026 The petitioner is a partnership firm and is an assessee under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act')
2. The issue involved in this Writ Petition pertains to the rejection of the delay condonation application for filing ITR dated 17.01.2024 submitted by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act, as per the order passed by the 2 nd respondent for the assessment year 2023-2024. The said application was dismissed vide Ext.P12 order by the 2 nd respondent, solely on the reason that, the condonation of delay in filing the return of income can only be considered in cases where, the assessee demonstrates genuine hardship that would arise if the refund is not granted and in this case assessee failed to demonstrate that. Thus, the reasons that were highlighted in the application for not filing the return were not at all considered by the 2nd respondent in Ext.P12. W.P.(C)No.15324 of 2025 3
2026:KER:9571
3. I have heard Smt. G.Mini, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.P.G.Jayashankar, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
4. A counter affidavit has been submitted by the respondents in response to the averments contained in the Writ Petition and opposing the reliefs sought. One of the main contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the scope of power available to the 2 nd respondent, while considering an application under Section 119 (2) (b) is to consider whether sufficient reasons are cited for not filing the returns in time and a finding on the merits of the returns is not a matter to be considered. Reliance was placed on the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.1420/2023 dated 26.09.2023 (Daisy v. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax) wherein, this question was considered and it was categorically observed that, as far as the merits of the returns are concerned, the same is to be considered by the assessing authority and the Principal Commissioner while exercising powers under Section 119(2)(b) was to merely consider the reasons for condonation of delay in W.P.(C)No.15324 of 2025 4 2026:KER:9571 preferring the refund claimed or submitting the returns. The said decision has been followed by the learned Single Bench of this Court in W.P.(C)No.26159/2024 dated 14.10.2024 (Mohan Poovampally Gopal v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax) and in W.P.(C) No.37648/2023 dated 24.11.2023 (M/s. Best Ready Mix Concrete v. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax).
5. After considering all the relevant materials and the statutory stipulations contained under Section 119 (2)(b) of the Act as well as Ext.P11 Circular, I find merit in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is evident from Ext.P12 order that, the application was rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner failed to demonstrate genuine hardship if the refund is not granted. However, the said reason is not sustainable in the light of the principles laid down by this Court in the decisions referred to above. The fact that, the petitioner was denied the refund of the amount, itself is a genuine hardship, which a responsible authority cannot ignore, as in such case, the right of the petitioner over his property is being denied. Therefore, the authority concerned ought to have W.P.(C)No.15324 of 2025 5 2026:KER:9571 considered the grounds highlighted by the petitioner for condoning the delay. However, in Ext.P12 order, there is no consideration of the reasons furnished by the petitioner for not filing the returns in time. Therefore, an interference is necessary.
In such circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P12, directing the 2nd respondent to reconsider the application submitted by the petitioner under Section 119 (2)(b) of the Act and to pass appropriate orders after giving the petitioner an opportunity for being heard. Necessary order in this regard shall be passed after taking into account of the observations made by this Court in this judgment and the decisions referred to above, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE rpk/MJL W.P.(C)No.15324 of 2025 6 2026:KER:9571 APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 15324 OF 2025 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION TO CONDONE THE DELAY DATED 17.01.2025 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF INCOME AND BALANCE SHEET FOR THE YEAR 2023-24 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ANNUAL TAX STATEMENT DATED NIL Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 14/03/2024 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 18.03.2024 Exhibit P6 THE ATTACHMENTS ALONG WITH THE REPLY AS ACKNOWLEDGED IN THE INCOME TAX PORTAL DATED NIL Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 30.09.2024 Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE BALANCE SHEET FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2021-22 Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE BALANCE SHEET FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2022-23 Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.9/2015 DATED 09.06.2015 Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.11/2024 DATED 1/10/2024 Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28/02/2025