Wp/7495/2024 Of Laxmidas Mangalore v. Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12 DAY OF JUNE, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV -WRIT PETITION NO. 7495 OF 2024 (TIT) BETWEEN: (BY SRI. KOUSHIK SIREKOLLA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI BALARAM R RAO., ADVOCATE) SRI BALARAM R RAO., ADVOCATE) AND: 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD, C R BUILDING, N G ROAD ATTAWARA MANGALURU-575 001 INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD, C R BUILDING, N G ROAD ATTAWARA MANGALURU-575 001 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DILIP M., JUNIOR STANDING COUNSEL) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO 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 ORDER PASSED BY THE R1 UNDER SECTION 119(2) OF THE ACT DTD 19.09.2022 IN DIN AND ORDER NO. ITBA/COM/F/17/2022-23/1045656755(1) (ANNEXURE-H) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER The petitioner has called in question the correctness of the order passed under Section 119 (2) (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at Annexure-H. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the impugned order had been passed by taking hyper-technical view regarding the aspect of delay though petitioner had taken the stand that he being a non-resident residing in United Arab Emirates (UAE) used to travel in and out and was forced to stay abroad for substantial period of time during the relevant period in light of the Lock Down imposed during COVID-19 Pandemic. - 3 - 3. It is submitted that no sufficient opportunity has been granted to putforth his case. Without prejudice to such of the contentions relating to non-appreciation of cause for delay appropriately, the learned counsel for petitioner submits that the order under Section 119 (2) (b) is unsigned and on such ground also, the order be set aside and remitted for fresh consideration. 4. Perused the order at Annexure-H which does not bear the signature, nor it was digitally signed. It is also observed that the authority has taken a very conservative view as regards contention of delay. 5. Taking note that the order is unsigned and also taking note that the memo filed along with the details of entry and exit of the petitioner to India from 30.06.2014 to 16.08.2017 as also the Passport entries of the petitioner, it would be appropriate to relegate the matter for fresh consideration. The court has taken note of the documents produced before this court and having considered the same, deem it appropriate to remand the matter back for fresh consideration. The documents produced before this court should also be looked into. The petitioner is at liberty to make out additional pleadings and additional documents to substantiate his case for delay. 6. Accordingly, the order at Annexure-H is set aside. In light of discussion made above, the matter is remitted for fresh consideration. The petitioner is at liberty to produce further pleadings and documents in support of his case which ought to be considered appropriately and the matter may be disposed off in accordance with law. The decision under Section 119 (2) (b) is to be made within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Sd/- JUDGE