M/S SSN TECHNOLOGIES vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP/10885/2025HC KarnatakaKAHC01022165202524 April 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 21.11.2024 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. The Court held that the Principal Commissioner had adopted a hyper-technical approach in rejecting the petitioner's application for condonation of delay. The Court found that the petitioner's inability to file revised returns within the prescribed period was due to a bonafide oversight in not importing TDS details, which constituted genuine hardship as per Circular No. 9/2015. The Court reasoned that adopting a justice-oriented approach and considering the valid and sufficient grounds pleaded by the petitioner, it was just and appropriate to condone the delay. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was allowed, and the respondents were directed to accept the revised returns filed by the petitioner for Assessment Year 2023-24, with liberty to verify the claims and proceed in accordance with law.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s SSN Technologies Infotech Private Ltd, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging an order dated 21.11.2024 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Respondent No. 1). This order rejected the petitioner's application filed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking condonation of a 29-day delay in filing revised income tax returns for Assessment Year 2023-24. The petitioner contended that the delay was due to bonafide reasons and unavoidable circumstances, specifically an oversight in importing TDS details while filing the original returns, which constituted genuine hardship. The Revenue supported the impugned order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax erred in rejecting the petitioner's application for condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for filing revised Income Tax Returns for Assessment Year 2023-24 by 29 days. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the delay was caused by a bonafide oversight in importing TDS details while filing the original returns, leading to a need for revised returns. They contended this constituted genuine hardship as contemplated in Circular No. 9/2015 dated 09.06.2015, and therefore, the rejection of their application by the Principal Commissioner was erroneous and deserved to be set aside. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel for the respondents-Revenue supported the impugned order and submitted 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)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:16868 WP No. 10885 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 10885 OF 2025 (T-IT)

BETWEEN:

M/S SSN TECHNOLOGIES INFOTECH PRIVATE LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI. SATHISH KUMAR R.V. NO.6/E47, 14TH MAIN ROAD VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 040. …PETITIONER

(BY SRI. R. CHANDRASHEKAR AND SHI. KASHINATH KALMATH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAMA MURTHY .R, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

THE PRINCIPAL COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE-1, BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560 095.

2.

THE ASSESSING OFFICER CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTRE ELECTRONIC CITY, BANGALORE-560 500.

3.

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(1)(1), BMTC BUILDING KORAMANGALAR, BANGALORE-560095. …RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. M. DILIP, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:16868 WP No. 10885 of 2025

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF THE R-1 PASSED U/S 119(2)(b) OF THE ACT DATED 21.11.2024 IN DIN NO. ITBA/COM/F/17/2024- 25/1070510625(1) (ANNEXURE-E) PASSED BY THE R-1.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, 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–E dated 21.11.2024 passed by the respondent No.1, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) seeking condonation of delay of 29 days in filing the income tax returns in relation to the Assessment Year 2023-24 was rejected by the respondent No.1.

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 2023-24, the petitioner filed returns after the prescribed period along with the application seeking condonation of delay of 29 days in filing the revised returns interalia contending that the petitioners had to file revised

- 3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:16868 WP No. 10885 of 2025

returns of income since the petitioner had failed to import TDS details while filing the original returns of income 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, respondent No.1 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.

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 revised I.T. returns within the prescribed period was due to oversight of the petitioner in not importing TDS details while filing the original returns of income and he could file the revised I.T. returns subsequent to

- 4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:16868 WP No. 10885 of 2025

expiry of the prescribed period. The respondents failed to appreciate that the petitioner could not file his revised 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 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–E dated 21.11.2024 is hereby set-aside; (iii) The application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay of 29

- 5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:16868 WP No. 10885 of 2025

days in filing revised Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Year 2023-24 is hereby allowed; (iv) The respondents are directed to accept the revised returns submitted by the petitioner for the aforesaid Assessment Year 2023-24; (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

NBM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 24

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 →