Sri Venkatesh Gorakshini Trust, vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)

PDF · subscribers
WP/2516/2025HC TelanganaHBHC01004829202530 January 2025Bench: SUJOY PAUL,RENUKA YARA6 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the impugned order rejecting the condonation of a four-day delay was unsustainable. The Court noted that the delay was minimal and occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic when the petitioner's trustee was in isolation. The Court found that the authority ought to have considered the application leniently, but instead dealt with it on hyper-technical grounds. The Court concluded that sufficient cause had been shown for the four-day delay. Consequently, the impugned order dated January 13, 2025, was set aside, and the proceedings were restored to the file of the 1st respondent, who was directed to decide the matter on its merits. The Writ Petition was disposed of accordingly.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sri Venkatesh Gorakshini Trust, represented by its managing trustee, Srikishan Badruka, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated January 13, 2025, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption). This order rejected the petitioner's application for condonation of a four-day delay in filing Form 10B for the assessment year 2020-21. The petitioner contended that the delay occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic when the trustee was in isolation. The Assessing Officer rejected the condonation application, stating that even during isolation, digital signing and online submission were possible. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to set aside the rejection order, condone the delay, and direct the respondent to process the Form 10B.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the action of the 1st respondent in rejecting the condonation of a four-day delay in submitting Form 10B for assessment year 2020-21, under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is contrary to CBDT Circulars No. 21/2020 and 16/2024. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the four-day delay was minor and occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic when the managing trustee was in isolation, constituting a sufficient cause for condonation. They relied on CBDT Circulars No. 21/2020 and 16/2024, which provide for condonation of delays in certain circumstances, particularly during the pandemic. Revenue's Contention: The revenue supported the impugned order, implicitly arguing that the petitioner's explanation for the delay was not sufficient and that the petitioner could have utilized digital means to file the form despite being in isolation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 119(2)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

\ [ 3446 ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT PETITION NO: 2516 OF 2025 Between: AND Sri Venkatesh Gorakshini Trust, Registered Office al 3-2-847, Kachiguda' [vo"*6io-, i"preienteo by its managing trustee, Srikishan Badruka S/o Late Sri Hari Prasad G Badruka ...PETITIONER 1. Commissioner of lncome Tax (Exemption)' lncome Tax Department,el^!1o.o1' AivJrii ehavan, opposite L.Ei. Stadium, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad' 500044 (State of Telangana) 2. Assessing Officer, Exemption Circle .'t ('l ), lncome Tax Department, .1s ^Floor' - A;t;k;i 6ha*n,bpposite L.B. Staditini, Basheerbagh, Hvderabad, 500044 (State of Telangana) 3. PrinciDal chief commissioner of lncome Tax (Exemptions), cBDT, IMinistry of - Finanbe, lncome Tax Department, Govt. of lndia, Room No' 149A, North Block, New Delhi.l 10001. 4. The Union of lndia, rep. by its Secretary' MlnisJry of Finance, Depqff.e.{pj- nevenue, Direct Tixe's, dovernment of india, N6rth Block New Delhi-1 10001 . ...RESPONDENTS 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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to declare the action of the 1't respondent, in passing the rejection order dt.l3lolt2ozsinrejectingthecondonationofdelayof4daysunderSection 119(2Xb) submitted submitted by the petitioner along with Form No 10B application for the assessment year 2O2O-21 is quite contrary to CBDT Circular No.2t2o2Odt.o3.o1.2O2oandCircularNo.16t2o24dated18i1112024and

consequently set aside the rejection order dt.13-01-2025,|>y :ondoning the delay of 4 days and direct the 1st respondent to deal with the Forrn IJo.10B submitted on 19-01-2021 for assessment yeat 2O2O-ZOZ1. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circ rmstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the rejection order dt.13tO1l2O2S passed by the 1st respondent for the assessment year 2020-21 under the Act, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI TEJPRAKASH TOSHNIWAL Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: SRI A. RAMAKRISHhIA REDDy, SC FOR INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI K. SANJEEV, SC FOR UNION OF INDIA The Court made the following: ORDER 7/

J i THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHrEF JUSTICE SUJoy PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENT'KA YARA WRTT PETITIO N No.25l6 ot2o25 ORDER (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujog paul) Sri Tejprakash Toshniwal, learned counsel for the peititoner; Sri A. Rama Krishna Reddy, learned Junior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department, for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri K. Sanjeev, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4- Union of India. 2. With the consent, frnally heard. 3. The challenge is mounted to the order dated 13.O1.2025 whereby application for condonation of delay of four days li1ed by the petitioner in filing Form 1OB report was rejected. 4. Criticizing the impugned order dated 13.01.2025, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that little delay of four days was properly explained. The delay, admittedly, occurred during the COVID pandemic period as the petitioner during that period was in isolation. The petitioner's stand was discarded by holding that even if the petitioner was quarantined/isolated during COVID period, nothing prevented it to digitally sign the relevant documents and furnish them to the Department through online. t t rl I I i

2 j! 5. Learned counsel for the other side supporl.ed the impugned order. 6. It is not in dispute that the delay was only for four days and such delay occurred during COVID panderrLic period when the petitioner was in isolation. Thus, learned auth,crity ought to have considered the application leniently but, rather, dealt with it on hyper technical grounds. The impugned ordr:r, declining to condone the delay of mere fou days, cannot withstand judicia,l scrutiny. In our opinion, for condonation of dekr.y of four days, sufficient cause has been shown. Thus, the impugped order dated L3.O1.2O25 is set aside and the proceedings are re store<l in the file of respondent No. 1. Respondent No.1 sha1l decide the proceedings on its own meri1.s. 7. The Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs Interlocutory applications, if any pending, sha11 also stald closed. SD/. V,KAVITHA ASSISiTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// .,1 SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 Commissioner of lncome Tax (Exemption), lncome Tax D,:partment,3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Opposite L.B. Stadium, Basheer Bagh, l{yderabad, 500044 (State of Telangana) Assessing Officer, Exemption Circle 1(1 ), lncome Tax Department, 1 st Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Opposite L.B. Stadium, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, 500044 (State of Telangana) Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax (Exemptions), CBDT, Ministry of Finance, lncome Tax Department, Govt. of lndia, Room Nc. 149A, North Block, New Delhi.l 1 0001. 3

7 I 4 I19 S_9919tqry, Ministry. of Finance_, .Department of Revenue, Direct Taxes, sovernmenr oI rndra, rhe union of lndia, North Block New Delhi-1 1ooo1 . 5. One CC to Sri Tejprakash Toshniwat Advocate tOpUCl 6. One CC to Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate tOpUCl I. 9n" QQ t_o Sf K.Sanjeev, Advocate (OPUC) B. Two CD Copies TJ m s --E* .4 '1

f t I II HIGH COURT DATED:3010112025 ORDER WP.No.2516 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @P"riu { .A o ts ,\ ?$25 iiE srAr 2 tiB Oa S PAl ( 1 q)oo ao }, I t ( w" ,{attt&.-

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 →