Wp/109587/2014 Of Shrirang v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax

SUJATASUBHASHPAMMAR Digitally signed bySUJATA SUBHASHPAMMARDate: 2024.01.2303:10:52 -0800 WP No. 109587 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 19 DAY OF JANUARY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR -WRIT PETITION NO. 109587 OF 2014 (TIT) BETWEEN: SHRIRANG S/O YALLAPPA CHOUGULE AGE: YEARS OCC: BUSINESS R/O. C 43, MARUTI GALLI, MACHHE, BELGAUM …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANGRAM S KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OPP. CIVIL HOSPITAL KHIMJIBHAI COMPLEX, BELGAUM …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. Y V RAVIRAJ, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT I.E COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BELGAUM DATED 24/07/2014 BEARING NO. F.NO. CIT/BGM/119(2) (B)/ 2014-15 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE INCOME TAX RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER The petitioner has filed income tax returns for the assessment year 2010-11 on 20.12.2013 claiming a refund of Rs.2,76,550/- which was paid in excess. The petitioner had filed an application for condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, stating that the delay was caused since he was preoccupied in his business, and also due to ill-health of his mother and hospitalization of his wife. The respondent rejected the application for condoning the delay stating that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Hence, this writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 3. The Income Tax Department has issued a circular dated 09.06.2015, by which, guidelines are issued to deal with the application for condonation of delay in filing their returns claiming refund and returns claiming carry forward of loss and set off thereof under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act. Para 5 of the circular lays down the criteria for condoning the delay, and it states that, at the time of considering the case under Section 119(2)(b), it shall be ensured that the income / loss declared and / or refund claim is correct and genuine and also that the case of genuine hardship on merits. 4. The petitioner is a small businessman and is claiming an amount of Rs.2,76,550/- which was paid in excess, and if the petitioner is entitled for refund of the said amount, the dismissal of the application will cause monetary loss to the petitioner, thus, causing genuine hardship. The amount claimed being very meager, it would be appropriate if the application submitted by the petitioner for condonation of delay requires to be condoned. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER (i)Writ petition is allowed. (ii)The impugned order dated 24.07.2014 passed by the respondent at Annexure – C is hereby quashed, and the delay in filing the income tax return for the assessment year 2010-11 is hereby condoned. (iii)The respondent to consider the case of the petitioner, claiming refund of tax deducted at source by the payee for the assessment petitioner, claiming refund of tax deducted at source by the payee for the assessment NC: 2024:KHC-D:1311 WP No. 109587 of 2014 year 2010-11 and pass appropriate order in accordance with law after notifying the petitioner. Sd/- JUDGE RSH LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 62