Wp/8294/2025 Of M/S Anjali Institute Of Research And Rehabilatation v. The Commissioner Of Income-Tax

HIGH COURT (SPecial Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY TWO THOUSAND PRESENT THE HONOURABLE [P.SAM ] ANOTHE HONOURABLE [JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA] WRIT PETITION [N][O: ][8294 OF ][2025] Between: [//s Aniali lnstitute [of ][Research ][and ][Rehabilatation' ][for ][the ][Mentally]iiii'oidlbi".j [-ino--oin". ][Disabled, ][Door No-. 1-53' ][Hanuman ][Nasar']ij;;;i;. noao, [parar<oi, ][West ][Godavari ][District ][- ][534 ][260' ][Andhra]i';;;$.-C;p;"i""ieo [6v ][iii'secretarv, ][Mr' varrev ][Dursa venkata ][Prasada]Rao' S/o Mr' Suryanarayana ...pETraoNER AND 1The il;";;' Commissioner iih;;;;, [bp ][of ][potiG ][lncome-Tax, (Exemptions), Hyderabad' 2nQ ][La ][Stadiurir, ][Basheerbish, ] [vderabad - 500 ][Flo-o1][004']Telangana.Telangana. 2The Centralised [Processing Center, lncome Tax Department' ][Bengaluru' ][1st]iffi;;;;;ii& [Alpni ][No.. ]["+ui, ][+a47' ][Beratenaasrahara ][Besur, ][Hosur ][Road']utiarinatti [H6bli, Bengaluru ][- 560 ][100, Karnataka']iffi;;;;;ii& [Alpni ][No.. ]["+ui, ][+a47' ][Beratenaasrahara ][Besur, ][Hosur ][Road']utiarinatti [H6bli, Bengaluru ][- 560 ][100, Karnataka'] 3The lncome [Tax Officer, ][Exemption ][Ward, ][Rajahmundry, Aayakar ][Bhawan']Rajahmundry [- ]533 [101 ], [Andhra Pradesh]Rajahmundry [- ]533 [101 ], [Andhra Pradesh]4The lncome Tax [Offrcer, Exemption ][Ward ][1(4), ] [y-O-eg^O^a!, ]1}QVa [kar ][Bhawan'] d;d;it" [tB ][siaoium, ][Basheerbagh, ][Hvderabad - 500 004, Telangana] ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Arlicle [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 [of ][Mandamus ][or any ][other ][appropriate ][Writ' ][Order ][or]Direction, declaring, [that.] a. the order dated [2011212024, ][vide DlN. ][\TBNCOM|F|1712024-]2511071419284( [1), ][passed ][by ][the ][1st Respondent, ][re.iecting ][the application ][filed] by the Petitioner for condoning [the delay, in ][filing ][Form 108, ][lor ][the ][Assessment]Yeat 2021 - 22 and b. the rectification [order ][issued ][by ][the ][2nd ][Respondent, ][dated ][07 03 ][2023, ][u/s]154 of the lncome Tax Act, [1961, ][vide ][DlN. ][?PC121221U71324261008, ][rectifying]the intimation issued [u/s ][143(1) ][of ][the lncome ][Tax ][Act, ][1961, ][dated ][10'08'2022,]vide DlN. CPCt2122lA7 [t2876'10069, ][for the ][Assessment ][Year 2021 ][- ][22] as arbitrary, mechanical, [illegal, ][bad ][in ][law, violative ][of the ][rrinciples ][of ][natural]justice apart from being violative of Articles [14, ][19(1)(g) ][and 265 ][of ][the]constitution of lndia [and the ][lncome ][Tax Act, ][1961 ][and ][consequently ][set ][aside]the same [in ]the interests [of justice.] IA NO: 10F 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC [praying ][that ][in ][the ][circumstances ][stated]in the affidavit filed in support [of ][the petition, ][the ][High Court may be pleased ][to]stay all further [proceedings, including any recovery, ][pursualt ][to ][the ][rectification]order issued by the 2nd Respondent, [dated ][07.03-2023, ][uls ][154 ][of the ][lncome]Tax Act, 196'1, vide DlN. CPC/21221U71324261008, [for ][tlre ][Assessment ][Year]2021 - 22, [pending ]disposal of the [above ][Writ ][Petition.] Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A.V.A.SIVA Counsel for the Respondents: SRI [REDD\'.A., ] [lT]The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDA W.P. No.8294 OF 2025 ,EB' [(Pe ][r Hon'ble ][Sri ][Justice ][P.Sam ][Koshy)] Heard Mr. A.V.A.Siva Kartikeya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.Rama Krishna Reddy, leamed StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department for the respondentsPerused the record. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A.V.A.SIVA Counsel for the Respondents: SRI [REDD\'.A., ] [lT]The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDA W.P. No.8294 OF 2025 ,EB' [(Pe ][r Hon'ble ][Sri ][Justice ][P.Sam ][Koshy)] Heard Mr. A.V.A.Siva Kartikeya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.Rama Krishna Reddy, leamed StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department for the respondentsPerused the record. 2. The instant writ petition petition has been filed assailing filed assailing assailing the orderorderdated 20.12.2024 passed by respondent No.l rejecting theapplication filed by the petitioner seeking for condonation ofdelayin filing Form l0B for the assessment [year ]2021-22. The challengealso is to the order of respondent No.2 dated 07.03.2023 [issued]under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 196l [(for ]short ['the]Act') rectiffing the intimation notice issued [under ][Section ][143(l)]of the Act d*ed 10.08.2022. The instant writ petition petition has been filed assailing filed assailing assailing the orderorder 3. At the outset, the leamed Standing [Counsel ][for ][the]Department had raised a preliminary objection as [regards ][the]jurisdiction of this High Court. The contention of the learned Standing Counsel was that the petitioner herein is an establishmentwhich is located in the newly carved out State of Andhra Pradesh.The office of respondent No.3, who is the assessing authority forthe petitioner's establishment, is also located in the State ofAndhra Pradesh and, therefore, the petitioner ought to havepreferred the writ petition before the High Court of AndhraPradesh, rather than this High Court. 4. The learned Standing Counsel for the Department reliedupon a decision of this High Court in the case ofSri Gopalaswamy Educational Society vs. The Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Exemptions), Hyderabadr and also a decision of theHon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Principal Commissioner ofIncome Tax vs. ABC Papers Ltd., and anotherz whereby theHon'ble Supreme Court as also this Court in the irforesaid twodecisions have held that in case where the establishmr:nt is located,it would be the High Court concemed having jurisdir:tion over thearea where the establishment is located which could have the actual ' [W.P.No.745 ][8 ]of 2024 dated 2 1.03.2024'(2022) 447 rTR I (SC) jurisdiction to entertain the petitioneven though though the authoritywhose order is under challenge is located in the different State even though though the authority 5. Per contra, the learned counsel lor the petitioner opposingthe preliminary objection had relied upon two decisions [of ][this]High Court. First, in the case ol Shilparam Arts, Crafts [and]Cultural Society vs. Additional/Joint/Deputy [Assistant]Commissioner of Income Tax/Income [Tax oflicer, ][National]Faceless Assessment Centre/Nlational [E-Assessment ][Centrer ][and]also subsequent decision recently decided [by ][a Coordinate ][Bench]of this High Court in the case of Nl/s Children [in ][the Nliddle ][vs.]Union of lndia and othcrsr [whercin ][in ][similar ][circumstances, ][the]two writ petitions were allowed and [the ][objections were entertained]holding that the High Court had the [juri'diction ][and ][has ][gone ][into]the veracity of the order [passed ][by ][the Commissioner ][of ][lncome]Tax (Exemptions) and decided [the ][satne.] ' [(2024) ][468 ][tTR ][3 ] [5 ][(Telangana)]" W.P.No.3104l ol 2024 [dated ][14. ] [1.2024] ' [(2024) ][468 ][tTR ][3 ] [5 ][(Telangana)]" W.P.No.3104l ol 2024 [dated ][14. ] [1.2024] 6. Having heard the contentions put-forth on either side and onperusal of the records when we look at the two dec sions reliedupon by the leamed Standing Counsel for the Departnrent, we flndthat the two decisions, one rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Courtin the case ofABC Papers Ltd., (1 supra) and rhe othcr decided bythis High Couft in the case of Sri Gopalaswamy OducationalSociety (2 supra), the challenge before the High Court was theorders which were passed in an appeal. Whereas in rhe two writpetitions decided one by this Bench and the other by;r CoordinareBench in the case of Shilparamam Arts, Crafts and CulturalSociety (3 supra) as also in the case of M/s Children in theMiddle (4 supra) it was the order of the Commission,:r of lncomeTax (Exemptions) which were under challenge and were not theappeals which were decided. We also find that the rejcction ofForm l0B by respondent No.1 is not an appe lable order.Moreover, the submission of Form 10B was initialll accepted byrespondent No.2 and granted the._penefit of exemption to thepetitioner, but subsequently the said order was rectified byrespondent No.2 on 07.03.2023 on the ground that l.'orm l0B was submitted at a belated stage. It was here that the petitionerthereafter filed a petition under Section I l9(2Xb) of the Act beforerespondent No.1 seeking for condonation of the delay. The delayrespondent No.1 seeking for condonation of the delay. The delaywas only of l0 days and it is this petition which stood rejected videthe impugned order dated 20.12.2024the impugned order dated 20.12.2024 7. Having heard the contentions of both sides and upon dueconsideration of the record, we have given thoughtful considerationso far as the preliminary objection raised by the leamed StapdingCounsel for the Department is concerned and we find that even ifthe petition is allowed the matter is not going to either respondentNo.3 or any of the officers of the Income Tax Department in theState of Andhra Pradesh. The consequential orders and theconsequential steps to be taken is again by respondent No.2, whootherwise is not located in the State of Andhra Pradesh and in thegiven circumstances, we are inclined to take a view that this Benchhad taken in the case of Shilparamanr Arts, Crafts and CulturalSociety (3 supra) as also by a Coordinate Bench in the case ofChildren in the Middle (4 supra) and overrule the objection raisedby the leamed Standing Counsel and decide that this High Court has the jurisdiction to test veracity of the ord:r passed byrespondent No. l.respondent No. l. 8. Coming to the question of whether respondr:nt No. I wasjustified in rejecting the petition filed under Sectior I I9(2)(b) ofthe Act, this Bench as also the Hon,ble Supreme (.ourt has timeand again reiterated the fact that when application under Sectionll9(2)(b) of the Act has been made, it has to be considered in aliberal manner and with a more pragmatic approacl, particqlarlytaking into consideration the genuine hardship the assesseewould face in the event if the condone delay petition is not allowed.In the instant case, the petitioner has got the exerrption underSection l2(9) and they are availing the said benefiri since 2005onwards and the retums were filed by them within rhe stipulatedtime. We find that Form l0B which was supposed to be filed on15.02.2022 was filed on25.02.2022. Thus, there is a <lelay of onlyI0 days. Undoubtedly, the said period for all practical purposes isconsidered to be a COVID period. Even the judg.nent of theSupreme Court in Suo Motu W.p.No.3 of 2020had while disposingof the said writ petition had clearly said that the period lrom 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 should not be taken into considerationfor the purpose of counting the limitation and it was also clarifiedfor the purpose of counting the limitation and it was also clarifiedthat the said principles laid down in the said decision of theHon'ble Supreme Court could also be applicable in all theproceedings and not just in the judicial proceedings alone, rather itwould be applicable in all the said proceedings where the period oflimitation has been prescribed under the Statute. If the analogy laiddown in the said decision of the Hon'bte Supreme Court is takeninto consideration and applied in the instant case, then there can beHon'ble Supreme Court could also be applicable in all theproceedings and not just in the judicial proceedings alone, rather itwould be applicable in all the said proceedings where the period oflimitation has been prescribed under the Statute. If the analogy laiddown in the said decision of the Hon'bte Supreme Court is takeninto consideration and applied in the instant case, then there can beno dispute that the delay of 10 days in the submission of Form I 0Bcould had been easily condoned by respondent No. l.9. For this very reason alone, we find that the impugned orderpassed by respondent No.1 dated 20.12.2024 deserves to be and is,accordingly, set aside. As a consequence of the setting aside of thecould had been easily condoned by respondent No. l.9. For this very reason alone, we find that the impugned orderpassed by respondent No.1 dated 20.12.2024 deserves to be and is,accordingly, set aside. As a consequence of the setting aside of theimpugned order dated 20.12.2024 passed by respondent No.l,we hold the authorities to treat Form 10B that has been filed to bewithin limitation and as'a consequence the order passed byrespondent No.2 under Section 143(l) of the Act dated 10.08.2022we hold the authorities to treat Form 10B that has been filed to bewithin limitation and as'a consequence the order passed byrespondent No.2 under Section 143(l) of the Act dated 10.08.2022 would automatically get revived so far as the asessme:nt year 2021_ 22 is concemed. 10. The writ petition to the aforesaid extent is allowed and disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. T. JAYASREE0t,puw RectSTRAR\--:--:-SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The Commissioner of lncome-Tax(ExemptionsHycerabad, 2nd Floor,Aayakar Bhawan, Opposite LB Stadiu m, Bashee rbagh, Hyderabad - 500 004.TelanganaAayakar Bhawan, Opposite LB Stadiu m, Bashee rbagh, Hyderabad - 500 004.Telangana 2. The Centralised Processing Center, lncome Tax Departrrent, Bengaluru, .lstFloor, Prestige Atpha No.. [-qAn, ]aAiz, eeriGnJigiJI;ru B;g;; Ho;; Rb;,Uttarahatti Hobti, Bengaturu - 560 1OO, Xarnati[i] [- ]['-]Floor, Prestige Atpha No.. [-qAn, ]aAiz, eeriGnJigiJI;ru B;g;; Ho;; Rb;,Uttarahatti Hobti, Bengaturu - 560 1OO, Xarnati[i] [- ]['-] 3. The lncome Tax Officer . Exemp_tion Ward, Rajahmundrv, Aayakar Bhawan,Rajahmundry - 533 101, Andhr;-C;d;hRajahmundry - 533 101, Andhr;-C;d;h 4. The lncome Tax opposi te L B S tad Officer i um, a'asneer6ash, Exemption Ward -H vl 1(4), Hyderabad, Aayakar Bhawan." " " "i"Ij i"Ij ""1 [d5j ][fdojjboi' ]"dlirrl 5. One CC to SRI ""1 5. One CC to SRI A.V.A.StVA KARTIKEYA, Advocate [OpUr)] 6. One CC to SRt RAMA KRTSHNA REDDY.A., SC FOR tT tOpUCl 7. Two CD Copies BSRBM\1- HIGH COURT DATED: 2410312025 ()e[1HE ] I14:)+.S(oo2 6 [JUl,l]ilffi,\+ ORDER WP.No.8294 of 2025 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION,WITHOUT COSTS