Case Law Details
Trina Group Limited Vs Chairman (Bombay High Court)
PAN allotted after ITR Due Date: Bombay HC Directs CBDT to Expedite Pending Section 119(2)(b) Condonation Application
Material Facts: The petitioner challenged a notice dated 28 March 2025 issued under Section 148A(1), an order dated 30 June 2025 under Section 148A(3), and a reassessment notice dated 30 June 2025 under Section 148, all relating to Assessment Year 2019-20. The notices proceeded on the basis that the petitioner was a non-filer of income tax returns. The petitioner, a UK-based company without direct business operations in India, had sold its entire stake in a Singapore company to a Spanish company. Since the Singapore company held a 91% stake in an Indian company, the transaction was treated as an indirect transfer under Section 9(1)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioner applied for a PAN to file its return in India but received the PAN after the due date and thereafter filed an application under Section 119(2)(b) seeking condonation of delay.
Procedural History: The Revenue confirmed through its affidavit that the Section 119(2)(b) application, filed in 2022, remained pending before the CBDT.
Issue: Whether directions should be issued for expeditious disposal of the pending condonation application.
Relevant Statutory Provisions: Sections 9(1)(i), 119(2)(b), 148A(1), 148A(3) and 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Court’s Observations and Findings: The Court noted that the condonation application had remained pending since 2022. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, it observed that the decision on the condonation application would have a direct bearing on the outcome of the writ petition.
Directions: The Court requested the CBDT to decide the application under Section 119(2)(b) as expeditiously as possible and, in any event, within three months from communication of the order. It directed that the writ petition be listed for admission on 6 October 2026 and continued the ad-interim relief granted earlier until further orders.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT
1. The above Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned Notice dated 28th March 2025 issued under Section 148A(1), the impugned Order dated 30th June 2025 passed under Section 148A(3) as well as the impugned Reassessment Notice under Section 148 dated 30th June 2025. All these Notices and Order pertain to Assessment Year 2019-20.
2. Amongst other grounds raised to challenge the said Notices and the order, one of the grounds is that the Notice proceeds on the basis that the Petitioner is a non-filer of Income Tax Returns. The Petitioner, being a U.K. based company, and not having any direct business operations in India, was not required to ordinarily file its Return of Income in India. The Petitioner had a 100% stake in a company called Destination Singapore Services Pte. Ltd, [for short the “Singapore Company”]. The Petitioner sold its 100% stake in the Singapore Company to a Spanish Company called TUI Holding Spain. Since the Singapore Company, in turn, held a 91% stake in a company called Le Passage to India Tours and Travel Private Limited, which is an Indian Company, by virtue of the deeming fiction in Section 9(1)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, this transfer, though completely done outside India, resulted in an indirect transfer of shares of Le Passage to India Tours and Travel Private Limited, the Indian Company. It is for this reason that the Petitioner sought to file its Return of Income in India, and for which it applied for a PAN. Once the PAN was allotted, the Petitioner sought to file its Return of Income in India, but belatedly. Accordingly, the Petitioner made an Application under Section 119(2)(b) of the IT Act to the CBDT for condoning the delay.
3. Though initially there was some controversy as to whether the Application filed by the Petitioner [under Section 119(2)(b)] was disposed of or not, it is now clear from the Affidavit in Reply filed on behalf of Respondent No.2 that the Application seeking condonation of delay in filing the Return of Income is still pending before the CBDT. This Application was filed as far back as in the year 2022.
4. Considering these peculiar facts and circumstances, we would request the CBDT to decide the Application filed by the Petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) as expeditiously as possible, and, in any event, within a period of three months from the date of communication of this Order to the CBDT. We have passed these directions in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case because depending on whether the delay is condoned or not, would have a direct bearing on the outcome of the present Writ Petition.
5. We now place the above Writ Petition on board on 6th October 2026 for admission. The ad-interim relief granted earlier shall continue until further orders.
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.
Author Bio
