Telangana State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax

The instant is a writ petition which has been filed assailing the order dated 28.11.2025 r.e., rejection order passed by the respondents rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 119{2)(b) o1'the Income Tax Act, 196l (for short 'the Act') whereby the pctitioner had sought for condonation of delay filing ol the income tax retums for the assessment year ln 202t 22

The application filed by the applicant was rejected by the office of thc Prinoipal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) holding that the petitioner has not made out any strong case which would meet the requirement as is envisaged under Section under Section ll9(2) (b) of the Act neither does the petitioner filed application under thc Circulars issued by the Govemment i.e., Circular No.l.l/2023 nor under Circular No.ll12024. 4. I'he learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is a non-profit making cooperative society run by the State o {"felangana. The said Society was established in the year 2014 aftcr the bif urcation of the two States. The said society was running in losses and that it is not a profit making

Having heard the contentions put-forth on either side and on perusal of the record, particularly the contents of the application under Section I l9(2Xb) of the Act being filed by the petitioner seeking for condonation of delay was the finding given by the PCIT where the PCIT had considered all the grounds that the petitioner has raised. They are extracted hereunder: Due to retirement and transfers no one gets appointed for the short gap. Due to shortage of staff during covid period one of the employees are able to pursue the auditors. Due to professional negligence by the Chartered Accountant, we could not file the same within the prescribed time limit under Section 139(1). That the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate and has occurred due to circumstances beyond our control. As the Government Nodal agency without having any profit motive providing services in the marketing field for members/farmers in the State.

So far as the judgment of the I{igh Court of Kerala in the case of PALA MARKETING COOPERATM SOCIETY LTD's (supra) is concerned, if we look into the facts of that case, more particutarty the reasons which prevented the petitioner therein in not submitting the ITRs would show that it was on account of the Auditor's fiting of the audit repoft at an inordinate belated stage. Such was not a case here or at least the records do not reflect so. Hence, the judgment of the Kerala High Court again is distinguishable on facts. Likewise, the judgment of the Bombay High Court also tvould go to show that the petitioner therein, as would be reflected from the contents of the order, show that they had timely fited the retums which again is not the case here and the said judgment also is distinguishable on facts.

For atl the aloresaid reasons, this Court in exercise of the writ jurisdiction does not find the finding given by the PCIT in rejecting the order under Section 119(2Xb) of the Act of the petitioner in any manner, is erroneous or contrary to law nor can it 8 - il I I l l l i i I be held ro be a perverse finding entailing lor interdicting ol the tmpugnecl ordcr IO The writ petirion fails and is, accordingly, rejected There shall be no order as to costs. Consequentlv, misceilaneous petitions pending, ilany, shall stand closcd //// SD/-T. SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER G To, 1 2 The Principal Commissroner of lncome Tax. Hyderabad - 4. lT Tower, AC Guards, [Vlasab Tank, Hyderabad - 500004 The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 5(i), Hyderabad, lT Tower, AC Guards, Ivlasab Tank, Hyderabad - 500004

One CC to SRt VENKATRAM REDDY MANTUR, Advocate. tOpUCl 4 One CC to SRt K SUDHAKAR REDDY, (Sr SC FOR TNCOME TAX) tOpUCl

Two CD Copies BSK BS