Wp/4952/2023 Of K. Saran Shetty v. The Pri.commissioner Of Income Tax

Digitallysigned byNARASIMHAMURTHYVANAMALALocation:HIGHCOURT OFKARNATAKA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31 DAY OF MARCH, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD -WRIT PETITION NO. 4952 OF 2023 (TIT) BETWEEN: K. SARAN SHETTY AGED 56 YEARS, D NO 14-4-404/1, PANCHAVATI WINES, ASHIRVAD BUILDING, FALNIR ROAD, MANGALORE - 575 002. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M R.VANAJA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE PRI.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, PANAJI, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, PLOT NO. EDC COMPLEX, PATTO PLAZA, PANAJI, GOA - 403 001. PANAJI, GOA - 403 001. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1) AAYAKAR SAMPARK KANDRA WARD 1(1) AAYAKAR SAMPARK KANDRA MANGALORE - 575 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND AND SRI.M.DILIP, ADVOCATES) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 26.12.2022 PASSED UNDER SECTION 119(2)(b) OF THE ACT FOR THE ASST YEAR 2020-21 (ANNEXURE-D). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN "B" GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER The petitioner has called in question the first respondent's order dated 26.12.2022 (Annexure-D) under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner in filing this application has sought for condonation of delay in filing the returns under Section 139(1) of the I.T. Act for the assessment year 2020-2021. It is seen from the records that if in the application for condonation of delay the petitioner has cited issues with the computer system, in response to the notices given, the petitioner has stated that a member of his family was hospitalized and therefore, he could not file the returns within time. This dichotomy has perhaps persuaded the first respondent to refuse condonation of delay opining that the reason assigned is not genuine. However, the assertion that the petitioner's family member was hospitalized is not seriously contested. The petitioner must have an opportunity, but on terms. The petitioner must file returns within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and given the indulgence, the petitioner must not raise grounds of limitation, if in case there is any reason for issuance of notice under Section 143(2) of the I.T.Act and orders under Section 143(3) of the I.T.Act. Hence, the petition stands disposed of quashing the impugned order dated 26.12.2022 (Annexure-D) with liberty to the petitioner to file returns for the relevant assessment year under Section 139(1) of the I.T.Act within three [3] months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order subject to the condition as aforesaid. SD/- JUDGE RB