Ms. K. Sahoo, Advocate v. Opposite Parties

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.4490 of 2024 …..Petitioner M/s. Sri Satya Sai Development Organization, Bhubaneswar Ms. K. Sahoo, Advocate Vs. ….. Opposite Parties Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Hyderabad, India and others Standing Counsel for the IT Department CORAM: DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI MR. JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY ORDER20.05.2024 Order No. 01. This matter is taken up by hybrid mode. 2. Ms. K. Sahoo, learned counsel for the Petitioner-assessee submits that the present writ petition may be disposed of in terms of the order dated 17.05.2024 passed in the similar matter i.e., W.P.(C) No.12662 of 2024. submits that the present writ petition may be disposed of in terms of the order dated 17.05.2024 passed in the similar matter i.e., W.P.(C) No.12662 of 2024. 3. Ms. K. Sahoo, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner further submits that the Petitioner filed application for condonation of delay for late filing of Form-10B pertaining to the Assessment Year 2021-22. The application was rejected by the impugned order dated 14.06.2023. She prays to set aside the impugned order and direct the Opposite Parties-Revenue to accept the Form-10B. Petitioner further submits that the Petitioner filed application for condonation of delay for late filing of Form-10B pertaining to the Assessment Year 2021-22. The application was rejected by the impugned order dated 14.06.2023. She prays to set aside the impugned order and direct the Opposite Parties-Revenue to accept the Form-10B. 4. Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties-Income Tax justifies the impugned order. the impugned order. 5. Perused the impugned order. On query from this Court, Ms. K. Sahoo, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner demonstrate that under cover of letter dated 18.04.2023, certain requisitions were made for furnishing information. The Petitioner by letter dated 17.03.2023 under Annexure-4 furnished the information. The requisition and compliance were both digitally done. She then draws attention to the impugned order to submit that there is no dispute regarding information received by opposite parties-Revenue. 6. For ready reference, first paragraph of the impugned order is reproduced hereunder:- “With reference to the assessee’s application for condonation of delay, cited under reference 1 above. The assessee has been requested to furnish certain information vide above cited reference 2, justifying its application for condonation of delay. However, the assessee has not submitted any information called for, till date. Hence, the application filed by the assessee for condonation of delay Under Section 119(2)(b) of the assessment year 2021-2022 is hereby rejected.” 7. In the requisition for information under Annexure-4, various information were sought for which also included query on reason for delay in filing Form-10B for Assessment Year 2021-2022. 8. Perusal of Annexure-4 dated 17.03.2023, it appears that the Authorized Representative of M/s. Sri Satya Sai Development Organization has furnished explanation citing reason for the delay in uploading the Form-10B and prayed for condonation. Though, the explanation is stated to have been furnished to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Income Tax Department, Hyderabad, the same has not been considered in its proper prospective by assigning reason, which is one of the essential facets of principles of natural justice. However, vide order dated 14.06.2023 passed by the CIT (Exemption), Hyderabad, the application of the Petitioner-Assessee for condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act in filing Form-10B for the Assessment Year 2021-22 stood rejected. 8. Perusal of Annexure-4 dated 17.03.2023, it appears that the Authorized Representative of M/s. Sri Satya Sai Development Organization has furnished explanation citing reason for the delay in uploading the Form-10B and prayed for condonation. Though, the explanation is stated to have been furnished to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Income Tax Department, Hyderabad, the same has not been considered in its proper prospective by assigning reason, which is one of the essential facets of principles of natural justice. However, vide order dated 14.06.2023 passed by the CIT (Exemption), Hyderabad, the application of the Petitioner-Assessee for condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act in filing Form-10B for the Assessment Year 2021-22 stood rejected. 9. In the circumstances, the order dated 14.06.2023 under Annexure-5, being without reason as is apparent from the record, stands set aside and it is directed that the application for condonation of delay is restored for reconsideration by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Hyderabad. Needless to say that the said authority before taking decision may afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. (DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE Priyajit (G. SATAPATHY) JUDGE Signature Not Verified Digitally SignedSigned by: PRIYAJIT SAHOOReason: AuthenticationLocation: HIGH COURT OF ORISSADate: 21-May-2024 13:53:36