Wp/10885/2025 Of M/S Ssn Technologies v. The Principal Comissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24 DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR -WRIT PETITION NO. 10885 OF 2025 (TIT) BETWEEN: (BY SRI. M. DILIP, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF THE R-1 PASSED U/S 119(2)(b) OF THE ACT DATED 21.11.2024 IN DIN NO. ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-25/1070510625(1) (ANNEXURE-E) PASSED BY THE R-1. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned order at Annexure–E dated 21.11.2024 passed by the respondent No.1, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) seeking condonation of delay of 29 days in filing the income tax returns in relation to the Assessment Year 2023-24 was rejected by the respondent No.1. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in relation to the aforesaid Assessment Year 2023-24, the petitioner filed returns after the prescribed period along with the application seeking condonation of delay of 29 days in filing the revised returns interalia contending that the petitioners had to file revised - 3 - returns of income since the petitioner had failed to import TDS details while filing the original returns of income and owing to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, the petitioner was not in a position to file the returns within the prescribed period. It was contended that the delay in filing the I.T. returns was due to genuine hardship as contemplated in the Circular No.9/2015 dated 09.06.2015 and as such, respondent No.1 committed an error in rejecting the application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) of the I.T.Act, which deserves to be set-aside. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-Revenue would support the impugned order and submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the respondents have adopted hyper technical approach in refusing to condone the delay without appreciating that the inability and omission on the part of the petitioner to file revised I.T. returns within the prescribed period was due to oversight of the petitioner in not importing TDS details while filing the original returns of income and he could file the revised I.T. returns subsequent to - 4 - expiry of the prescribed period. The respondents failed to appreciate that the petitioner could not file his revised I.T. returns within the prescribed period on account of bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, which clearly constituted genuine hardship on the part of the petitioner/assessee as contemplated in the said Circular dated 09.06.2015 and failure to appreciate this, has resulted in erroneous conclusion warranting interference by this Court in the present petition. 6. Under these circumstances, adopting justice oriented approach and having regard to valid and sufficient ground pleaded by the petitioner in support of his claim for condonation of delay, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and condone the delay in filing the returns by the petitioner by allowing the application filed by the petitioner. 7. In the result, I pass the following: O R D E R (i) The petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned order at Annexure–E dated 21.11.2024 is hereby set-aside; 21.11.2024 is hereby set-aside; (iii) The application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay of 29 Section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay of 29 days in filing revised Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Year 2023-24 is hereby allowed; 6. Under these circumstances, adopting justice oriented approach and having regard to valid and sufficient ground pleaded by the petitioner in support of his claim for condonation of delay, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and condone the delay in filing the returns by the petitioner by allowing the application filed by the petitioner. 7. In the result, I pass the following: O R D E R (i) The petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned order at Annexure–E dated 21.11.2024 is hereby set-aside; 21.11.2024 is hereby set-aside; (iii) The application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay of 29 Section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay of 29 days in filing revised Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Year 2023-24 is hereby allowed; (iv) The respondents are directed to accept the revised returns submitted by the petitioner for the aforesaid Assessment Year 2023-24; returns submitted by the petitioner for the aforesaid Assessment Year 2023-24; (v) It is needless to state that respondents are at liberty to verify the claim of the petitioner and proceed further in accordance with law. liberty to verify the claim of the petitioner and proceed further in accordance with law. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE NBM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 24