VIHAAN DIRECT SELLING (INDIA) vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP/24139/2025HC KarnatakaKAHC01052240202506 November 2025Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR5 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned order dated 27.03.2025. The Court held that the respondents had adopted a hyper-technical approach in refusing to condone the delay. The Court found that the petitioner's inability to file returns within the prescribed period was due to a technical error on the Income Tax Portal, which constituted bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances, and sufficient cause, leading to genuine hardship. The Court reasoned that the respondents failed to appreciate this genuine hardship as contemplated in Circular No. 9/2015, leading to an erroneous conclusion. The Court deemed it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and condone the delay of 13 days in filing the Income Tax Returns for Assessment Year 2020-21. The respondents were directed to accept the returns submitted by the petitioner, with liberty to verify the claims and proceed further in accordance with law.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Vihaan Direct Selling (India) Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka seeking to quash an order dated 27.03.2025 passed by the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation), Bengaluru (Respondent No. 2). This order rejected the petitioner's application filed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking condonation of a 13-day delay in filing its income tax returns for the Assessment Year 2020-21. The petitioner contended that the delay was due to technical errors on the Income Tax Portal, specifically an "Bad request Request POST" error, and that this constituted a bonafide reason and genuine hardship.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's application for condonation of delay in filing income tax returns for Assessment Year 2020-21 under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was erroneous, considering the petitioner's submission of a technical error on the Income Tax Portal as a cause for the delay. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the delay of 13 days was due to a technical error ("Bad request Request POST") encountered while attempting to submit the returns on the Income Tax Portal. They contended that this constituted bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances, and sufficient cause, amounting to genuine hardship as contemplated in Circular No. 9/2015 dated 09.06.2015. Therefore, the rejection of their application by the respondent was an error that warranted setting aside. Revenue's Contention: The respondents supported the impugned order and argued that there was no merit in the petition, and it was liable to be dismissed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 119(2)(b),Section 116

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45048 WP No. 24139 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 24139 OF 2025 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

VIHAAN DIRECT SELLING (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, CHICAGO AVENUE, S-203, 2ND FLOOR, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 052 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. MUHAMMED IMTHIAZ, SON OF MR. MUHAMMED IQBAL, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHREEHARI KUTSA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) BENGALURU BENGALURU AN AUTHORITY UNDER SECTION 116 OF THE INCOME ACT, 1961 CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001

2.

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX, INVESTIGATION, DGIT (INVESTIGATION), BENGALURU, AN AUTHORITY UNDER SECTION 116 OF THE INCOME ACT, 1961, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001

Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka

- 2 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45048 WP No. 24139 of 2025

3.

THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL RANGE)-2, BENGALURU, AN AUTHORITY UNDER SECTION 116 OF THE INCOME ACT, 1961, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, QUEEN’S ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001

4.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL CIRCLE)-2(3), BENGALURU THE JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, QUEEN’S ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. Y.V. RAVIRAJ & SRI. M. DILIP, ADVOCATES)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE DIGITALLY SIGNED AND ELECTRONICALLY ISSUED ORDER UNDER SECTION 119(2) (B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DATED 27.03.2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2020-21 AND BEARING THE DIN NO. ITBA/COM/F/17/2024- 05/1075116846(1) WHICH IS ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-P AND ETC.,

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL ORDER

In this petition, petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned order at Annexure-P dated 27.03.2025 passed by the respondent No.2, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) seeking condonation of delay of 13 days in filing the

- 3 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45048 WP No. 24139 of 2025

income tax returns in relation to the Assessment Year 2020-21 was rejected by the respondent No.2.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in relation to the aforesaid Assessment Year 2020-21, the petitioner filed returns after the prescribed period along with the application seeking condonation of delay of 13 days in filing the returns interalia contending that when the petitioner attempted to submit the returns, an error stating “Bad request Request POST” was displayed on the Income Tax Portal and owing to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, the petitioner was not in a position to file the returns within the prescribed period. It was contended that the delay in filing the I.T. returns was due to genuine hardship as contemplated in the Circular No.9/2015 dated 09.06.2015 and as such, the respondent committed an error in rejecting the application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) of the I.T.Act, which deserves to be set aside.

- 4 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45048 WP No. 24139 of 2025

4.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents- Revenue would support the impugned order and submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

5.

A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the respondents have adopted hyper technical approach in refusing to condone the delay without appreciating that the inability and omission on the part of the petitioner to file I.T. returns within the prescribed period as when the petitioner attempted to submit the returns, an error stating “Bad request Request POST” was displayed on the Income Tax Portal who could file the I.T. returns subsequent to expiry of the prescribed period. The respondents failed to appreciate that the petitioner could not file his I.T. returns within the prescribed period on account of bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, which clearly constituted genuine hardship on the part of the petitioner/assessee as contemplated in the said Circular dated 09.06.2015 and failure to appreciate this, has resulted in erroneous conclusion warranting interference by this Court in the present petition.

6.

Under these circumstances, adopting justice oriented approach and having regard to valid and sufficient ground pleaded

- 5 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45048 WP No. 24139 of 2025

by the petitioner in support of his claim for condonation of delay, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and condone the delay in filing the returns by the petitioner by allowing the application filed by the petitioner. 7. In the result, I pass the following: O R D E R (i) The petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned order at Annexure-P dated 27.03.2025 is hereby set-aside; (iii) The application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay of 13 days in filing Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Year 2020-21 is hereby allowed; (iv) The respondents are directed to accept the returns submitted by the petitioner for the aforesaid Assessment Year 2020-21. (v) It is needless to state that respondents are at liberty to verify the claim of the petitioner and proceed further in accordance with law. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MDS; List No.: 2 Sl No.: 40

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 →