MOHAMMED FAYAZ AHMED vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP/9861/2026HC KarnatakaKAHC01021645202614 July 2026Author: B M SHYAM PRASAD6 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed the order dated April 15, 2024, passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. The Court held that the petitioner's cause, stemming from an inability to e-verify the return due to technical glitches in Aadhar-based verification, along with his subsequent procedural steps of approaching the Central Processing Centre and then filing for condonation, should have been considered. The Court viewed this as a case of failure to e-verify filed returns rather than a complete non-filing. Consequently, the Court permitted the petitioner to file the returns again, condoning the delay in filing the fresh returns. The petition was disposed of with these directions.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mohammed Fayaz Ahmed, filed his Income Tax Return for Assessment Year 2022-23 on December 19, 2022. He was unable to digitally verify the return due to technical reasons, rendering it invalid. He first approached the Central Processing Centre and subsequently filed an application with the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) for condonation of delay in re-verification. The PCIT, by an order dated April 15, 2024, rejected this application, stating that the petitioner had not provided genuine reasons or documentary evidence for the delay and had not demonstrated due diligence. The petitioner then filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka seeking to quash the PCIT's order and to be allowed to submit e-verification.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner's inability to e-verify the Income Tax Return for Assessment Year 2022-23 due to technical difficulties constitutes a valid reason for condoning the delay in re-verification, under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that he could not e-verify the return due to technical difficulties with Aadhar-based verification, although this was not explicitly elaborated in his initial application. He also contended that his application should have been considered as a case of failure to e-verify filed returns, not non-filing. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through the PCIT's order, argued that the reasons provided by the petitioner were generic, lacked documentary evidence, and did not establish genuine hardship or due diligence. The revenue relied on Board's Circular No. 9/2015, stating that the conditions laid down therein were not fulfilled.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 119(2)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9861 OF 2026 (T-IT)

BETWEEN:

MOHAMMED FAYAZ AHMED S/O. SALEH AHMED, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.815, SALEHA BUILDING, A.K. COLONY, 2ND CROSS, TANNERY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 O45. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. R. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE) AND:

1.

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BENGALURU-1, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, BMTC BUILDING, B0 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 O95.

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

2.

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1 (2)( 1), BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 O95. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. DILIP, ADVOCATE)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 15-04-2024 PASSED U/S.119(2)(b) OF THE ACT (ANNEXURE-C) (ITBA/COM/F/17/2024- 25/1064098777(1)) PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND THE PETITIONER HUMBLY PRAYS THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO CONDONE THE DELAY AND DIRECT THE 2ND RESPONDENT, TO ALLOW TO SUBMIT E-VERIFICATION, FOR THE RETURN FILED ON 19-12-2022 AND THEREAFTER PROCESS THE RETURN AND ISSUE REFUND OF EXCESS TAX DEDUCTED AND REMITTED TO THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has filed the returns for the Assessment Year 2022-23 in Form ITR-V, but the petitioner has not been able to digitally verify the same, and consequentially, the Return is treated as invalid. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed an application with the Central Processing Centre, and when that has not yielded results, has filed an application with the first respondent for condonation of delay in re-verification stating that Returns are filed on 19.12.2022 but he could not e-verify due to technical reasons without elaborating on technical reasons.

2.

The first respondent, by the impugned order dated 15.04.2024, has rejected the petitioner's application stating thus.

"7. Thus, it is imperative to ensure that the assessee is not allowed to take advantage to his own wrong and that the assessee had genuine reason(s) for not filing the Return of

Income within prescribed time limit. Assessee must demonstrate that timely compliance could not be made despite due diligence on his part.

8.

In the present case, these conditions are not satisfied. As already mentioned, the reasons given by the assessee are very generic and not acceptable as the assessee has not produced any documentary evidence in support of the claim made. Assessee has not failed to establish genuine hardship. The technical reason cited by the assessee for not filing ITR in due time is also not tenable. Since no such difficulty reported and the people do filed ITR for that period. Hence, the case does not fulfill the conditions laid down in Board's Circular No.9/2015 dated 09/6/2015."

3.

Mr. R. Chandrashekar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner could not e-verify the Returns filed on 19.12.2022 because of certain difficulties with the generation of Aadhar based verification but inadvertently has not clarified same in the application seeking condonation of delay. Mr. M. Dilip, a learned

Standing counsel for the respondents who accepts notice for the respondents, is heard in the light of these circumstances to consider whether petitioner must be extended another opportunity to file returns condoning the delay.

4.

The petitioner's cause is essentially in two aspects: [i] inability to e-verify the Returns because of a technical glitch in generating Aadhar based verification, and [ii] first approaching the Central Processing Centre and then filing an application for condonation of delay. These aspects should have been considered as it would not be a case of non-filing of Returns but would be a case of failure to e-verify the Returns filed. When queried, Mr. R. Chandrashekar submits that the petitioner was not aware of the first respondent's order dated 15.04.2024 until recently. On a

comprehensive consideration of all circumstances, this Court is of the view that the first respondent's order dated 15.04.2024 must be quashed permitting the petitioner to file returns once again condoning the delay that will be in filing the fresh returns.

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

More judgments on Section 119(2)(b)

All 980 judgments and leading authorities on Section 119(2)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →