Wp/13350/2023 Of Fredrick Vijay Chand Peerajee v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bangalore-3

Digitally signedby YAMUNA KLLocation: HighCourt ofKarnataka NC: 2024:KHC:3219WP No. 13350 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23 DAY OF JANUARY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR -WRIT PETITION NO. 13350 OF 2023 (TIT)BETWEEN: FREDRICK VIJAY CHAND PEERAJEE, S/O LATE ROBERT PEERAJEE, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, R/AT 2/1, DEVI VIJAY CHAND BUILDING, 9th MAIN ROAD, VASANTHANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 052. PAN: …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BALRAM R RAO, ADVOCATE) AND: PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE-3, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FT. ROAD, 6th BLCOK, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 095. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SUSHAL TIWARI, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE DIRECTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA CALLING FOR THE RECORDS OF THE PETITIONERS CASE AND AFTER EXAMINING THE LEGALITY AND VALIDITY THEREOF BE (i)PLEASED TO QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED UNDER CLAUSE (B) OF SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 119 OF THE ACT DATED:9.5.2023 IN DIN AND ORDER NO.ITBA/COM/F/17/2023-24/1052683446(1) (ANNEXURE-E) FOR A.Y 2020-21 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned order, dated 9.5.2023 at Annexure-E whereby the respondent rejected the application filed by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay for filing of tax returns of the income for the assessment year 2020-21. 2. A perusal of the material on record would indicate that the petitioner filed the instant application, dated 7.1.2022 under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 seeking condonation of delay in filing the returns of income tax for the assessment year 2020-21. It was specifically contended that the petitioner was a senior citizen and on account of Covid-19 Pandemic, it was not possible for him to engage the services or - 3 - give instructions to the chartered accountant to file income tax returns during the assessment year 2020-21. It was also contended that the inability and omission on the part of the petitioner to file returns of income tax was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause and in the light of the Circular, dated 9.6.2015, the petitioner was entitled to seek condonation of delay in filing the returns. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the said application has been summarily rejected by the respondent by the cryptic, laconic, non-speaking and unreasoned order without assigning any reason as to why the explanation given by the petitioner was not accepted by the respondent and also as to why parameters prescribed in the Circular had not been complied with by the petitioner, who is before this Court by way of present petition. 3. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent would support the impugned order and submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 4. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, a perusal of the impugned order will indicate that absolutely no reasons have been assigned by the respondent except stating that the parameters contemplated under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act as elaborated in the Circular, dated 9.6.2015, have not been complied with/fulfilled by the petitioner. 3. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent would support the impugned order and submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 4. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, a perusal of the impugned order will indicate that absolutely no reasons have been assigned by the respondent except stating that the parameters contemplated under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act as elaborated in the Circular, dated 9.6.2015, have not been complied with/fulfilled by the petitioner. 5. In this regard, the respondent had failed to appreciate with valid and sufficient ground including Covid-19 Pandemic that had been urged by the petitioner for non-filing of income tax returns which clearly constitutes sufficient ground for non-filing of returns of income tax and consequently, the petitioner was entitled for condonation of delay in filing of returns of the income for the assessment year 2020-21 and as such, the impugned non-speaking and unreasoned order passed by the respondent deserves to be set aside and the application, dated 7.1.2022, deserves to be allowed. 6. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER a) Writ Petition is hereby allowed; b) The impugned order dated 9.5.2023 vide Annexure-E passed by the respondent is hereby set aside; Annexure-E passed by the respondent is hereby set aside; c) The application dated 7.1.2022 filed by the petitioner and received by the respondent on 28.4.2022 under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2020-21 is hereby allowed; and petitioner and received by the respondent on 28.4.2022 under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2020-21 is hereby allowed; and c) The petitioner is permitted to file returns for the said assessment year i.e., 2020-21 which shall be considered by the respondent, who shall proceed further in accordance with law. the said assessment year i.e., 2020-21 which shall be considered by the respondent, who shall proceed further in accordance with law. Sd/- JUDGE NSU List No.: 2 Sl No.: 11/CT:SNN