Wp/109740/2016 Of Sunil C. Bilgi v. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax

SUJATASUBHASHPAMMARDigitally signed bySUJATA SUBHASHPAMMARDate: 2024.01.2303:11:06 -0800 WP No. 109740 of 2016 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. 109740 OF 2016 (TIT) BETWEEN: SUNIL C. BILGI, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: BUSIENSS, R/O: ANANDA PRABHA, GROUND FLOOR, RS 1379, 2ND MAIN, 1A, BEHIND JAIN MANDIR, SADASHIV NAGAR, BELGAAVI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KRISHNAKUMAR JOSHI, ADV. FOR SRI.SANGRAM S KULKARNI, ADV.) AND: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, OPP CIVIL HOSPITAL, KHIMJIBAI COMPLEX, BELAGAVI-590001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. Y V RAVIRAJ, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE NO.F.NO.50(15-16)/119(2)(b)/Pr.CIT/BGV/2016-17 DATED 01/06/2016 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE – E. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER The petitioner filed returns of income for the assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 declaring total income of Rs.32,000, Rs.8,000/- and Rs.1,28,000/-, and claimed refund of Rs.45,320/-, Rs.11,300/- and Rs.1,81,280/- respectively. The application filed for condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act was rejected on the ground that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the returns. Hence this 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 the returns claiming refund and returns claiming carry forward of loss and set off thereof under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act. 4. 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) of the Income Tax Act, 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. 5. The petitioner is a small businessman, and is claiming an amount of Rs.2,76,550/- which was allegedly 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 is condoned. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER (i)Writ petition is allowed. (ii)The impugned order dated 01.06.2016 passed by the respondent at Annexure – E is hereby quashed, and the delay in filing the income tax returns for the assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 is hereby condoned. (iii)The respondent to consider the case of the petitioner, claiming refund of tax deducted NC: 2024:KHC-D:1312 WP No. 109740 of 2016 at source by the payee for the assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 and pass appropriate order in accordance with law after notifying the petitioner. Sd/- JUDGE RSH LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 68