Wp/5895/2025 Of Sayed Abdul Wahid v. Income Tax Officer

Digitallysigned byLEELAVATHIS RLocation:High Court ofKarnataka IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20 DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR -WRIT PETITION NO. 5895 OF 2025 (TIT) BETWEEN: SAYED ABDUL WAHID AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, C/O KHASIM KARKALA SAYED MOHEMAD, SAYED MANZIL, ANCHIKATTE, KARKALA, UDUPI DISTRICT, KARNATAKA 576 117. PAN NO. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BALRAM R RAO.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. INCOME TAX OFFICER ITO INTERNATIONAL TAX WARD, C.R. BUILDING, N.G. ROAD, ATTAWARA, MANGALURU, KARNATAKA- 575 001. 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT), BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA – 560 095. 3. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AYAKAR BHAVAN, PLOT NO.05, EDC COMPLEX, PATTO PLAZA, PANAJI, GOA- 403 001. …RESPONDENTS NC: 2025:KHC:12200 (BY SRI.E.T. SANMATHI AND SRI. DILIP.M, ADVOCATES) THIS WP IS FILED PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA CALLING FOR THE RECORDS OF THE PETITIONER -S CASE AND AFTER EXAMINING THE LEGALITY AND VALIDITY THEREOF BE PLEASED TO QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED REJECTION ORDER DATED 25.11.2024 PASSED IN CONNECTION WITH THE CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 119(2)(B) OF THE ACT IN DIN AND ORDER NO . ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-25/1070592679(1) (ANNEXURE-M) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2021-22, AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned order at Annexure-M dated 25.11.2024 passed by the respondent No.2, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) seeking condonation of delay of 107 days in filing the income tax returns in relation to the Assessment Year 2021-2022 was rejected by the respondent No.2. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in relation to the aforesaid Assessment Year 2021-22, the petitioner filed returns after the prescribed period along with the application seeking condonation of delay of 107 days in filing the returns interalia contending that due to covid-19 pandemic and owing to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, the petitioner was not in a position to file the returns within the prescribed period. It was contended that the delay in filing the I.T. returns was due to genuine hardship as contemplated in the Circular No.9/2015 dated 09.06.2015 and as such, the respondent committed an error in rejecting the application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) of the I.T.Act, which deserves to be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-Revenue would support the impugned order and submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the respondents have adopted hyper technical approach in refusing to condone the delay without appreciating that the inability and omission on the part of the petitioner to file I.T. returns within the 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-Revenue would support the impugned order and submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the respondents have adopted hyper technical approach in refusing to condone the delay without appreciating that the inability and omission on the part of the petitioner to file I.T. returns within the prescribed period was due to covid-19 pandemic, who filed the I.T. returns subsequent to expiry of the prescribed period. The respondents failed to appreciate that the petitioner could not file his I.T. returns within the prescribed period on account of bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, which clearly constituted genuine hardship on the part of the petitioner/assessee as contemplated in the said Circular dated 09.06.2015 and failure to appreciate this, has resulted in erroneous conclusion warranting interference by this Court in the present petition. 6. Under these circumstances, adopting justice oriented approach and having regard to valid and sufficient ground pleaded by the petitioner in support of his claim for condonation of delay, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and condone the delay in filing the returns by the petitioner by allowing the application filed by the petitioner. 7. In the result, I pass the following: O R D E R (i) The petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned order at Annexure-M dated 25.11.2024 is hereby set-aside; 25.11.2024 is hereby set-aside; (iii) The application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay of 107 days in filing Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Year 2021-22, is hereby allowed; Section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay of 107 days in filing Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Year 2021-22, is hereby allowed; (iv) The respondents are directed to accept the returns submitted by the petitioner for the aforesaid Assessment Year 2021-22. submitted by the petitioner for the aforesaid Assessment Year 2021-22. (v) It is needless to state that respondents are at liberty to verify the claim of the petitioner and proceed further in accordance with law. liberty to verify the claim of the petitioner and proceed further in accordance with law. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE