Wp/7742/2025 Of Janardhan Murarkar v. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCHTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING WRIT PETITION NOS: 7742 7514 7525 [0F ][2025] W.P.NO: 7742OF 2025 Between: Janardhan Murarkar, S/o Late Sri M. Rajaram, [aged ][about ][50 years, ][R/o. ][D.]No. 4-571 1, Uppertakdim Nizamabad 503001, [Telangana.] ...PETITIONER AND 1The Principal Commissioner of lncome [Tax, Hyderabad ][- ][2, Signature]Towers, Sy. No. 6(P) of Kondapur, Sy. [No ]37(P) [of Kothaguda, ]9pP.^^^ _Botanical Gardens, Serilingampally [(lV1), ] R [District, ][Hyderabad ][- 500084']Towers, Sy. No. 6(P) of Kondapur, Sy. [No ]37(P) [of Kothaguda, ]9pP.^^^ _Botanical Gardens, Serilingampally [(lV1), ] R [District, ][Hyderabad ][- 500084']2The Central Board of DireCt Taxes, , [Ministry of Finance, Department ][of]Revenue, North Block, New Delhi. Revenue, North Block, New Delhi. ...RES'ONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of [lndia ][praying ][that in ][the]circumstances stated in the affidavit [filed ][therewith, ][the ][High ][Court may ][be]pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more [particularly in ]the [nature of ][a ][writ ][of]Mandamus declaring the order dated [OSlOgl2O24 ][bearing ] [No']ITBA/COM/F/I712024-2511068382677(1)passed [by ][Respondent ][No. ][1 ][u/s']119(2Xb) of the Act for the AY. 2020-21, [as ][being ][arbitrary, ][mechanical, perverse,]without application of mind, bad in [law ][and ][consequently ][set ][aside ][the ][same]directing -the Respondent No.1 to [condone the delay ][enabling ][the ][Petitioner to ][file]his retu rn for the asst. [year ]2020-21 [.] Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A.V.RAGHU Counsel for the Respondents: M/s. J.SUNITHA, W.P.NO: 7514 oF 2025 Between: Janardhan Murarkar, S/o. Late Sd M- Rajaram, aged about 50 [years, ][Fi/o. ][D.]No. 4-5-11, Uppertakdim Nizamabad 5O3O01, Telangana. ...'ET'T'ONER AND '1. The Principal Commissioner, of lncorne Tax, Hyderabad - 2, SignatureTowers, Sy. No. 6(P) of Kondapur, Sy. No. 3(P) of Kothaguda, Opp.Botanical Gardens, Serilingampally [(M), ]R.R. District, Hyderabad - 500084.Towers, Sy. No. 6(P) of Kondapur, Sy. No. 3(P) of Kothaguda, Opp.Botanical Gardens, Serilingampally [(M), ]R.R. District, Hyderabad - 500084.2. The Central Board of Direct Taxes, Ministry of Finarrce, Department ofRevenue' North Block' New Delhi Revenue' North Block' New Delhi ...RES'.NDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia [praying ]that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewath, the High Court may bepteased to issue a writ, order or direction more particulady in the nature of a writ ofMandamus declaring the order dated O5lOgl2O24 bearing DIN [No.](ITBtuCOM/F/1 712024-2511068382415( 1 ) passed by Respondent No. 1 u/s.119(2Xb) of the Act for the AY, 2022-23, as being arbitrary, mechanical, [perverse,]without application of mind, bad in law and consequently set aside the samedirectinq the Respondent No.1 to condone the delay enabling the Petitioner to [file]his return for the asst. year 2O22-23 - Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A-V.RAGHU RAMCounsel for the Respondents: M/s. J-SUNITHA, JUNIOR SC INCOME TAX W.P.NO: 7525 OF 2025 Between: Janardhan Murarkar, S/o. Late Sri [M. ]Rajaram, aged about [5O ][years. ][fil/o. ][D.]No. 4-5-1 1, Uppertakdam Nizamabad [5O3O01, ]Telangana. ...PET|T|ONER AND Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A-V.RAGHU RAMCounsel for the Respondents: M/s. J-SUNITHA, JUNIOR SC INCOME TAX W.P.NO: 7525 OF 2025 Between: Janardhan Murarkar, S/o. Late Sri [M. ]Rajaram, aged about [5O ][years. ][fil/o. ][D.]No. 4-5-1 1, Uppertakdam Nizamabad [5O3O01, ]Telangana. ...PET|T|ONER AND 1 . The Principal Commissioner of lncorre Tax, *{yderabad 2, Signature [Towers,]Sy. No- 6(P) of Kondapur, Sy. No. 37(P) of Kothaguda, Opp. AotanicalGardens, Serilingampally [(M), ]R.R. District, Hyderabad [- ]50@84Sy. No- 6(P) of Kondapur, Sy. No. 37(P) of Kothaguda, Opp. AotanicalGardens, Serilingampally [(M), ]R.R. District, Hyderabad [- ]50@842. The Central Board of D,irect Taxes, Ministry of Finance, Department ofRevenue' North Block' New Delhi ...RES'.NDENTSRevenue' North Block' New Delhi ...RES'.NDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia [praying ]that [in ][the]circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court [may ][be]pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particulady in the nature of a writ of Mandamus declaring the order dated 05/O9/2024 bearing D{N No. tTBfuCOM/F/l712024-2511068382599(1) passed by Respondent No. 1 u/s. 119(2Xb) of the Actfor the AY 2021 -22, as being artitrary, mechanical, perverse, without applicationof mind, bad in law and @nsequently set askle the same d irecting the RespondentNo. l to condone the delay enabling ttre Petitioner to file his retum for the asst.year 2021-2?. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI AV.RAGHU RAMCounsel for the Respondents: M/s. J.SUNITHA, JUNIOR SC FOR INCOME TAX The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER HON'BLE SRI [P.SAM ] ANDHON'BLE SRI JUSTICE WRIT PETITION NOS.7742[75L4 7525][ oF ][2025] coMMON ORDER: $ter [Hon'ble ][Sri ][Justice ][P.SAM KOSHY)] Since the [parties ][and the ][issue involved ][in ][these three ][writ]petitions are common, [they are ][being ][heard ][together ][and ][disposed]of by way of this common [order.] 2. These three writ [petitions, ][under Article ][226 ][of ][the]Constitution of India' [are ][Iiled ][seeking ][to ][quash the ][orders, ][dated]O5.Og.2024 bearing DIN [No.lTBA ]I COMIF l17 12024-25/ to683a2677(rl; DIN [No.lTBA ]/CoM lF l17 12024-2sl 106s3824ls(1) and [No'ITBA/CoM ][lFltT ] 2024-25 / 1068382599(ll [respectively, ][passed ][by ][respondent ][No' ][1]whereby applications hled [by ][the petitioner ][seeking ][to ][condone the]detay in filing Income [Tax ][returns ][for ][the ][Assessment Years ][202O-]2021,2022-2O23 and 2O2l-2O22 [were ][rejected'] 3. Heard Mr. A.V.Raghu [Ram, ][learned counsel ][for ][the]petitioner and Ms. J.Sunitha, learned [Junior ][Standing ][Counsel ][for]lncome Tax Department appearing [for ][the ][respondents'] 4. Learned counsel appearing [for ][the petitioner submitted]that in terms of the provisions [of Section ][119 ][(2) ]{b) [of ][the ][Income]Act, l96l (for short, 'the Act, 1961'), the [Principal ][Commissioner ][ol] ) Income Tax has the power to condone the delay, provided the'has petitioner been able toprovide jqstifrable reasons forcondoning the delay in filing the Income Tax Retums and secondlythe petitioner has to make out a strong case on merits. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submittedthat neither of the two conditions have been scrutinized nor lookedinto by the authorities concerned and have passed the impugnedorders in a mechanical manner without application of mind andwithout giving an,v reasons lor rejecting applications as per SectionI 19 (2)(b) o[ the Acr, I 96l. 4. Learned counsel appearing [for ][the petitioner submitted]that in terms of the provisions [of Section ][119 ][(2) ]{b) [of ][the ][Income]Act, l96l (for short, 'the Act, 1961'), the [Principal ][Commissioner ][ol] ) Income Tax has the power to condone the delay, provided the'has petitioner been able toprovide jqstifrable reasons forcondoning the delay in filing the Income Tax Retums and secondlythe petitioner has to make out a strong case on merits. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submittedthat neither of the two conditions have been scrutinized nor lookedinto by the authorities concerned and have passed the impugnedorders in a mechanical manner without application of mind andwithout giving an,v reasons lor rejecting applications as per SectionI 19 (2)(b) o[ the Acr, I 96l. 6' Insofar as delay part is concerned, learned counsel forthe petitioner contended that the authorities concerned have notdiscussed as to rvhy they have not given any reason for the delaycaused to be not satisfactory. According to him, the petitioner hasspecifically pleacled with documentary proof to show that duringthe intervenir-rg period there was certain compelling circumstancesprevailing in the family, first being death of his father, secondbeing the petitioner himself got inflicted with covlD_19, the thirdreason assigned was that there was medical emergency thatoccurred to the sister of the petitioner and on account otwhich thepetitioner was not in a position to complete and submit the IncomeTax Returns in time. ln spite of specific pleading, the authoritiesconcerned have not discussed any ofthese circumstances to be not The authorities [concerned]satisfactory [in ][condonation ][of the delay']far as the Petitioner [not]also have [not ][discussed ][anything ][so]having any [merits ][in ][the ][submissions ][that ][he ][has ][made ][so ][far ][as]the returns [are concerned'] 7. A plain reading [of ][the ][provisions ][of Section ][119 ][(2)(b)]oftheAct,196l,itisevidentlyclearthatpowershavebeenentrusted [upon ][the ][Principal ][Commissioner' ][In ][the instant ][case']there appears [to ][be delay ][roughly spanning ][between 2-2t/z ][to ][3-3Yz]years in non-submission [of ][the returns for the ][Assessment ][Years]2O2O-2O21, [2O2l ][-2022 ][and' ][2022-2023 ][' ][In ][a ][given case' ][sufficient]explanation [being was provided ][by the ][petitioner ][for ][condoning ][the]for submission [of the ][returns']delay Further, [[on ][a ][reading ][of Section ][119 ][(2)(b) ][of ][the ][Act']][[a ][reading ][of Section ][119 ][(2)(b) ][of ][the ][Act']][[reading ][of Section ][119 ][(2)(b) ][of ][the ][Act']][[of Section ][119 ][(2)(b) ][of ][the ][Act']][[119 ][(2)(b) ][of ][the ][Act']][[(2)(b) ][of ][the ][Act']][[of ][the ][Act']][[the ][Act']][[Act']] a. Further, [[on ][a ][reading ][of Section ][119 ][(2)(b) ][of ][the ][Act']][[a ][reading ][of Section ][119 ][(2)(b) ][of ][the ][Act']][[reading ][of Section ][119 ][(2)(b) ][of ][the ][Act']][[of Section ][119 ][(2)(b) ][of ][the ][Act']][[119 ][(2)(b) ][of ][the ][Act']][[(2)(b) ][of ][the ][Act']][[of ][the ][Act']][[the ][Act']][[Act']]Lg6l , it gives [a ][clear indication ][that ][the ][authorities ][while]considering [the ][said ][applications ][if it ][considers ][it ][desirable ][or]the [said ][powers ][are ][to ][be ][exercised ][ensuring ][avoiding]expedient, genuine hardship [in ][any ][case ][or class ][ofcases' ][In the ][instant]case, plain [reading ][of ][impugned orders ][would ][reveal ][that ][except]to [the ][objections ][of the ] [and ][Range ][Head' ][no ][other]referring reasons were [mentioned' ][The ][authorities ][have ][in ][fact ][not]petitioneror [dealt ][with ][the ][reasons assigned ][by ][the]explained Iine order,for [condonation ][of ][delay' ][Except ][for ][one]seeking ASSCSSEC having [been ][failed ][to ][produce ][the ][substantial ][evidence'] / there is no furtherreasoningor discussion reflected in theimpugned order. / there is no furtherreasoningor discussion reflected in theimpugned order. 9. For theabove reasons, we are of the consideredoplnron that the impugned orders so far as rejection of condonationpetitions under Section I 19 (2)(b) of the Act, 196l is bad in lawand also not sustainable and same therefore deserves to be setaside and accordingly set aside. The authorities concerned arehereb5r directeC to scrutinize the retums furnished by thepetitioner along u,ith the appli661i6ns filed under Section 1ig(2)(b)of the Act, I 96 I and thereafter permit the petitioner to upload thereturn and thercupon accept and the same may be processed, inaccordance u,ith lau,. 10.Witl-r the above direction, these three Writ petitions aredisposed of'I'here shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneousapplications, if any pending, shall standany pending, shall stand closed ,r.otk';.JA"3i$na. //TRUE COPYII To 1 2. 3 4 5 PSK.GJP cil? HIGH COURT DATED:1810312025 COMMON ORDERWP.Nos.77 42, 7 514, I S2S oI 2025 rHE [I,, ]r(:(o(c2 9 llni 29[zoLs1)'-.'; ^."sgo DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITIONSWITHOUT COSTS r/t?iaxt't