The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Mentaura Technologies Pvt. Ltd., upholding the rejection of its application seeking condonation of delay in filing Form 10-IC under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Vinod Kumar has ruled that the assessee failed to comply with the prescribed timeline and could not claim relief after remaining inactive for several years.
The petitioner had opted to avail the concessional tax regime under Section 115BAA of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Year (AY) 2020–21. However, while it filed its return of income on time, it failed to submit the mandatory Form 10-IC within the due date, which is a prerequisite to claim the benefit of the reduced tax rate.
Subsequently, the company filed an application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act before the Commissioner of Income Tax seeking condonation of delay. The application cited COVID-19 infection of both its directors as the reason for non-compliance.
The Commissioner rejected the application on two primary grounds: The delay condonation application was filed beyond the permissible three-year period from the end of the relevant assessment year. The reasons provided, including COVID-19-related difficulties, were found insufficient, especially since the company had successfully filed its income tax return during the same period.
The authority relied on relevant circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), particularly Circular dated 18.11.2024, which clearly stipulates that no condonation application would be entertained beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year.
The petitioner argued that the CBDT circular was beneficial in nature and intended to mitigate genuine hardship, particularly for AY 2020–21, which was the first year of applicability for Form 10-IC. It was contended that the delay was bona fide due to exceptional circumstances arising from the pandemic.
On the other hand, the Revenue argued that multiple opportunities had already been provided through earlier circulars, including extensions up to June 2022, and that the petitioner failed to act within the extended timelines.
The High Court acknowledged that beneficial circulars should be interpreted liberally. However, it emphasized that such liberal interpretation cannot override explicit statutory timelines.
The Court observed that while COVID-19 could be considered a valid ground, the petitioner failed to act even after multiple extensions and opportunities provided through successive CBDT circulars. The outer limit of three years for filing condonation applications is mandatory and cannot be relaxed beyond the clear language of the circular. The petitioner approached the authorities after nearly five years from the end of the relevant financial year, which the Court described as “waking up from slumber.”
The Court further clarified that the Circular dated 18.11.2024 was intended to apply to pending applications and extend relief for subsequent years, but not to revive time-barred claims.
Holding that the petitioner failed to meet the prescribed timeline and did not fall within the ambit of the CBDT circular, the Court found no infirmity in the Commissioner’s order. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
Case Details
Case Title: Mentaura Technologies Pvt Ltd Versus PCIT
Citation: JURISHOUR-1077-HC-2026(DEL)
Case No.: W.P.(C) 4449/2026 & CM APPL. 21781/2026
Date: 29/04/2026
Counsel For Petitioner: Amit Kumar Pathak
Counsel For Respondent: Gaurav Gupta
