Silicon Institute Of Technology, Bbsr v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhavan, Hyderabad, Telangana And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 2555 of 2025 Silicon Institute of Technology, BBSR …. Petitioner -Versus- Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhavan, Hyderabad, Telangana and another ….Opposite Parties Advocates appeared in this case: For Petitioner : Mr. S.S. Padhy, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. A. Kedia, Junior Standing Counsel CORAM: THE HON’BLEMR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO J U D G M E N T -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of hearing and judgment: 4[th] February, 2025 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ARINDAM SINHA, ACJ. 1.Mr. Padhi, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client is a trust duly registered under the provisions in Income Tax Act, 1961. It is exempted from paying income tax. It is required to file audit report. 2. His client was late by 1 hour, 19 minutes and 16 seconds in uploading the audit report. It was not accepted as application for condonation of delay stood rejected by impugned order dated 4[th]December, 2024 made by the authority. He draws attention to the order and submits, purported reason given is, on verification it was noticed that reasons mentioned for delay are not sufficient and it was not a fit case for condoning delay in exercise of power under section 119 (2) (b) of the Act read with provisions of circular dated 9[th] June, 2015 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). He seeks interference. 3.Mr. Kedia, learned advocate, Junior Standing Counsel appears on behalf of revenue. He prays for adjournment to obtain instruction. 4.The authority considered reason given by petitioner for the delay to be mere asking on the basis of vague assertion without proof. Required proof, therefore, is reason for technical glitch causing delay in uploading the report. The delay is of 1 hour, 19 minutes and 16 seconds. The report stood uploaded beyond midnight of the last date, at 1:19 and 16 seconds in the following morning of 1[st] November, 2023. WPC no.2555 of 2025 5.The authority, in impugned order, relied upon view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of M/s. BU. Bhandari Nandgude Patil Associates [W.P.(C) no. 6537 of 2017], inter alia on the passage reproduced below. “Statutory time limits fixed have to be adhered to as it ensures timely completion of assessments. Discipline on regarding filing of returns have to be complied and respected, time limits unless compelling and good reasons are shown and established for grant of extension of time. Extension of time cannot be claimed as a vested right on mere asking and on the basis of vague assertions without proof.” 6.We appreciate petitioner may have been very close to the deadline in attempting to upload the report. It may have been a situation, where the pressure of meeting the timeline expiring in a few hours or minutes, there may have been mistakes made in uploading, attributed by petitioner as technical glitch. Even assuming such was the case, the report stood uploaded beyond midnight of the last date by 1 hour, 19 minutes and 16 seconds. There has to be pragmatic approach in exercising power to enlarge time. Here the time overrun over is a little more than an hour, on the report uploaded in the wee hours of the WPC no.2555 of 2025 next day, 1[st] November, 2023. We cannot imagine the delay would have hampered work of revenue in dealing with the report. 7.For reasons aforesaid, it is clear to us that impugned order is perverse. As such we have dealt with the writ petition without granting adjournment. 8.Impugned order is set aside and quashed. The report filed in Form 10B be considered as compliance by petitioner. 9.The writ petition is disposed of. ( Arindam Sinha ) Acting Chief Justice ( M.S. Sahoo ) Judge Arun Mishra Signature Not Verified WPC no.2555 of 2025 next day, 1[st] November, 2023. We cannot imagine the delay would have hampered work of revenue in dealing with the report. 7.For reasons aforesaid, it is clear to us that impugned order is perverse. As such we have dealt with the writ petition without granting adjournment. 8.Impugned order is set aside and quashed. The report filed in Form 10B be considered as compliance by petitioner. 9.The writ petition is disposed of. ( Arindam Sinha ) Acting Chief Justice ( M.S. Sahoo ) Judge Arun Mishra Signature Not Verified Digitally SignedSigned by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRADesignation: ADR-Cum-Addl. Principal SecretaryReason: AuthenticationLocation: High Court of Orissa, CuttackDate: 04-Feb-2025 19:20:12