Wp/6318/2023 Of M/S Beaver Marketing Solutions P Ltd v. Income Tax Offier

Digitally signed byMARIGANGAIAHPREMAKUMARILocation: HIGH COURT OFKARNATAKA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27 DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT -WRIT PETITION NO. 6318 OF 2023 (TIT) BETWEEN: M/S. BEAVER MARKETING SOLUTIONS P. LTD., BEARING 1289, 3 FLOOR, 7 CROSS, 5 MAIN, HSR LAYOUT, SECTOR-7 BANGALORE-560102 PAN-AAGCB534Q. A Y 2021-22 REGISTERED COMPANY REP. BY CEO BRIJESH PANDEY. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. TARSEM CHAND GUPTA, ADV.) AND: 1. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1)(1) BMTC BUILDING KORAMANGALA BANGALORE-560095. 2. PR. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KARNATAKA AND GOA REGION QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE-560001. KARNATAKA AND GOA REGION QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE-560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SUSHAL TIWARI, ADV. AND SRI E.I. SANMATHI, ADV.) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND GROUNDS ENUMERATED ABOVE IT IS MOST RESPECTFULLY PRAYED THAT ORDER NO.ITBA/COM/F/17/ 2022-23/1047773207(1) DATED 02.12.2022 ANNX-A PASSED BY THE PR.CCIT MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED AND SET ASIDE, THE WRIT PETITION MAY KINDLY BE ALLOWED AS PRAYED, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO GRANT SANCTION FOR ISSUE OF THE REFUND, ALONG WITH INTEREST U/S 244A FROM THE DATE OF THE APPLICATION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT ORAL ORDER The petitioner, a registered Private Limited Company is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning Annexure-A order bearing No. ITBA/COM/F/17/2022-23/1047773207(1) dated 02.12.2022, rejecting petitioner’s application filed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “1961 Act”) refusing to condone the delay in filing Income Tax Returns for the assessment year 2021-22. 2. Heard Sri.Tarsem Chand Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Sushal Tiwari and Sri.E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsels for respondents-Revenue. Perused the writ petition papers. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that for the assessment year 2021-22, the petitioner filed return of income on 22.08.2022 along with an application under Section 119(2)(b) of 1961 Act with a request to accept the return of income by condoning the delay. Learned counsel would submit that the second respondent under the impugned order refused to condone the delay and consequently refused to accept the return of income for the assessment year 2021-22 without assigning proper reasons. Further, he would submit that the impugned order of refusing to condone the delay is a non-speaking order and he submits that reasons mentioned in the application of the petitioner for condonation of delay is not considered by the second respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that due to COVID-19, employees of the petitioner-Company were not available, as such, the petitioner could not file return of income for the assessment year 2021-22 in time. Further, he submits that though time to file return of income was extended up to 15.03.2022, for non-availability of staff, the petitioner could not file returns. He submits that the said reason of the petitioner is not taken note of by the second respondent and the second respondent proceeded only on the basis that the petitioner has not made out case of genuine hardship and dismissed the application for condonation of delay. Therefore, he prays for allowing the writ petition. the assessment year 2021-22 in time. Further, he submits that though time to file return of income was extended up to 15.03.2022, for non-availability of staff, the petitioner could not file returns. He submits that the said reason of the petitioner is not taken note of by the second respondent and the second respondent proceeded only on the basis that the petitioner has not made out case of genuine hardship and dismissed the application for condonation of delay. Therefore, he prays for allowing the writ petition. 4. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.Sanmathi for respondents would submit that the petitioner failed to file return of income within the prescribed time or during the extended period. He submits that, taking note of the COVID period, time to file returns was extended thrice from 30.11.2021 to 15.02.2022 and finally to 15.03.2022, even then the petitioner failed to file return of income within the extended time. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner has not established genuine hardship as required under Section 119(2)(b) of 1961 Act. Therefore he would submit that the second respondent is justified in rejecting the application of the petitioner filed for condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) of 1961 Act. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. The facts are admitted. The petitioner failed to file return of income for the assessment year 2021-22 within the prescribed time or extended time i.e., up to 15.03.2022. The petitioner admittedly submitted return of income along with an application for condonation of delay in filing return of income which indicates that due to medical problems and as they had moved to their native place due to pandemic, they could not file return of income within the prescribed or extended time. 6. Under Section 119 of 1961 Act, the delay could be condoned if the assessee makes out that the condonation of delay sought is in respect of genuine claim and if condonation of delay is refused, the assessee would suffer genuine hardship. In the instant case, the reasons stated by the petitioner-Private Limited Company is that they had moved to their native place due to pandemic and they were also suffering from medical problems. During pandemic, every person has suffered and when the hardship during pandemic period is pleaded, the Authorities shall be liberal in considering such grounds. In the above fact situation, I deem it appropriate to set aside the order at Annexure-A, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) of 1961 Act, remanding the matter to the second respondent to consider afresh, with liberty to the petitioner to place on record the documents if any, in support of its contention. 7. Hence, the following order: Annexure-A bearing No.ITBA/COM/F/17/2022-23/1047773207(1) dated 02.12.2022 for the assessment year 2021-22 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the second respondent for fresh consideration and to pass orders in accordance with law. The petitioner is at liberty to furnish documents, if any, within two weeks. Thereafter, the second respondent shall proceed to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. With the above, the writ petition stands disposed of. SD/-(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE MPK CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51