Wp/6606/2024 Of Capuchin Friars Minor Society v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax

Digitally signed byCHANDANA B MLocation: HighCourt ofKarnataka IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28 DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR -WRIT PETITION NO. 6606 OF 2024 (TIT) BETWEEN: CAPUCHIN FRIARS MINOR SOCIETY, ALVERNO FRAIARYMONTE DE GUIRIM BARDEZ, NORTH GOA – 403 508 GOA, NATURE OF PETITIONER. REGISTERED UNDER SOCIETY REGISTRATION ACT, 1860 REPRESENTED BY ITS TREASURER, FR. ORFIN MENEZES, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, S/O MR. ANTHONY MENEZES, SOCIETY REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE NO.182/GOA/2000 PAN …PETITIONER (BY SMT. JINITA CHATTERJI, ADV. FOR SRI. S. PARTHASARATHI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE, MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 027. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) WARD .1, 3 FLOOR, PUNDALIK NIWAS, MALA, RUA-DE-QUREM, PANAJI, GOA – 403 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. DILIP, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER U/S 119(2)(b) OF THE ACT DATED 22.12.2023 IN FILE NO. ITBA/COM/F/17/2023-24/1058998416(1) BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17 (ANNEXURE-E) AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, 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 orders at Annexure – E, E1, F and F1 all dated 22.12.2023 passed by the respondent No.1, whereby the applications filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) seeking condonation of delay of 444 days, 444 days, 52 days and 52 days respectively in filing the Form 10 in relation to the Assessment Years 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2017-18 respectively was rejected by the respondent. 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 Years 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2017-18, the petitioner Form 10 after the prescribed period along with the application seeking condonation of delay of - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17591 444 days, 444 days, 52 days and 52 days respectively in filing the Form 10 interalia contending that that the tax consultant who was entrusted with filing of returns for the petitioner failed to do so and owing to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, the petitioner could not file Form 10 within the prescribed period. It was contended that the delay in filing Form 10 was due to genuine hardship as contemplated in the Circular No.9/2015 dated 09.06.2015 as such, the respondent committed an error in rejecting the applications 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 orders 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 Form 10 within the prescribed period was due to non-compliance on the part of the tax consultant of the petitioner as a result of which, the petitioner could file the Form 10 subsequent to expiry of the prescribed period. The respondents failed to appreciate that the petitioner could not file its Form 10 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. consultant of the petitioner as a result of which, the petitioner could file the Form 10 subsequent to expiry of the prescribed period. The respondents failed to appreciate that the petitioner could not file its Form 10 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 orders and condone the delay in filing the returns by the petitioner by allowing the applications 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 orders/Notices at Annexure – E, E1, F and F1 all dated 22.12.2023 and Annexure G and H both dated 10.01.2024, are hereby set-aside; E1, F and F1 all dated 22.12.2023 and Annexure G and H both dated 10.01.2024, are hereby set-aside; (iii) The applications filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay of 444 days, 444 days, 52 days and 52 days in filing Form 10 for the Assessment Years 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2017-18 respectively are hereby allowed; Section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay of 444 days, 444 days, 52 days and 52 days in filing Form 10 for the Assessment Years 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2017-18 respectively are hereby allowed; (iv) The respondents are directed to accept Form 10 submitted by the petitioner for the aforesaid Assessment Years 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2017-18; submitted by the petitioner for the aforesaid Assessment Years 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2017-18; (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