Wp/50054/2012 Of Sri Deepak Varma v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 12 DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2013 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.N. NAGAMOHAN DAS -WRIT PETITION No. 50054/2012 (TIT) BETWEEN : -------------- Sri. DEEPAK VARMA S/O. SATYAPAL VARMA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/A. No. 10, H M ASTORIAN BENSON CROSS ROAD NANDIDURGA ROAD BANGALORE. … PETITIONER (By Smt. VANI, ADV.) AND : ------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE IV C R BUILDING QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE – 560 001. 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER CIRCLE 8(2) SAMPIGE ROAD MALLESWARAM BANGALORE – 560 002. … RESPONDENTS (By Sri. K V ARAVIND, ADV.) --- THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 31.10.2012 PASSED BY RESPONDENT No. 1 VIDE ANNEXURE Q AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING B GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING; O R D E R In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 31.10.2012 Annexure Q passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax – respondent No. 1 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner to condone the delay in filing the revised returns. 2. On 27.07.2007 the petitioner filed return of income tax for the assessment year 2007-08. Before passing the order of assessment the petitioner filed revised returns on 16.07.2009. Since there was delay, the petitioner also filed an application for condoning the delay in filing the revised returns. Under the impugned order respondent No.1 rejected the application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay. Therefore the petitioner is before this Court. 3. Heard arguments on both the side and perused the entire writ papers. 4. Section 139(5) of the Income Tax Act specifies that an assessee can make a fresh/revised return at any time before the expiry of one year from the end of relevant assessment year or before the completion of assessment which ever is earlier. In the instant case the revised return was filed after lapse of one year from the end of relevant assessment year. Therefore there is delay in filing the revised returns. Under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act the Board is empowered to condone the delay beyond the period prescribed. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case respondent No. 1 committed an error in not exercising the power vested in him under Section 119(2)(b). Further it seen that the explanation offered by the petitioner is not appreciated in the impugned order. Lastly it is seen that respondent No. 1 having refused to condone the delay ought not to have ventured to decide the matter on merits of the case. But in the instant case even on merits respondent No. 1 proceeded to pass an order. In the circumstances the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. For the reasons stated above, the following; O R D E R i.Writ petition is hereby allowed. ii.The impugned order dated 31.10.2012 Annexure Q passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax – respondent No. 1 is hereby set aside. passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax – respondent No. 1 is hereby set aside. iii.The matter is remanded to respondent No.1 for reconsideration in accordance with law. reconsideration in accordance with law. LRS. Sd/- JUDGE.