M/S JAWAHARLAL NEHRU EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST (R) vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP/12007/2025HC KarnatakaKAHC01026191202528 April 2025Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR5 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax) had adopted a hyper-technical approach in refusing to condone the delay. The Court found that the petitioner's inability to file the returns and Form 10 within the prescribed period was due to the non-compliance of their tax consultant, which constituted bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances, and sufficient cause, leading to genuine hardship as defined in Circular No. 9/2015. The Court observed that the respondent failed to appreciate these facts, leading to an erroneous conclusion. Adopting a justice-oriented approach, the Court deemed it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and allow the petitioner's application for condonation of delay. The operative directions included allowing the petition, setting aside the impugned order, allowing the application for condonation of delay, and directing the respondents to accept the return of income and Form 10. The respondents were also granted liberty to verify the petitioner's claim and proceed in accordance with law.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s Jawaharlal Nehru Educational and Charitable Trust, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging an order dated 31/01/2024 passed by the 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 151-day delay in filing its income tax returns and Form 10 for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The petitioner contended that the delay was due to the failure of their tax consultant to file the returns, constituting bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances, and sufficient cause, amounting to genuine hardship as per Circular No. 9/2015. The Revenue supported the impugned order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax erred in rejecting the petitioner's application for condonation of delay of 151 days in filing Income Tax Returns and Form 10 for Assessment Year 2018-19 under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite the delay being attributed to the tax consultant's failure and constituting genuine hardship. Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the delay was caused by the tax consultant's non-compliance, which constituted bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances, and sufficient cause. They contended that this situation fell under the ambit of 'genuine hardship' as contemplated in Circular No. 9/2015 dated 09.06.2015, and therefore, the respondent committed an error in rejecting the condonation application. They relied on Circular No. 9/2015. Revenue's Contentions: The learned counsel for the respondents 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:17593 WP No. 12007 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 12007 OF 2025 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

M/S JAWAHARLAL NEHRU EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST (R) NO. 1, AMBEDKAR NAGAR, TALUK OFFICE ROAD, OLD TOWN, BHADRAVATHI - 577301 REPRESENTED BY TRUSTEE, SHIMOGA LAKSHMAN LATHESH, S/O SHIMOGA LAKAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, LAKSHMI NILAYA, B H ROAD, BEHIND DIST. FOREST OFFICE, LOWER HUTHA, BADRAVATHI – 577 301. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVI SHANKAR S V.,ADVOCATE) AND:

1.

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE, MISSION ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 027.

2.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD-1, CR BUILDING,

NAVANAGAR, HUBLI - 580 025. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ARAVIND CHAVAN, ADVOCATE)

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUITON OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR A DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 119(2)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT) DATED 31/01/2024 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN DIN NO ITBA/COM/F/17/2023-24/1060294579(1) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19 (ANNEXURE-A).

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

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

- 2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:17593 WP No. 12007 of 2025

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

ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned order at Annexure – A dated 31.01.2024 passed by the respondent No.1, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) seeking condonation of delay of 151 days in filing the income tax returns and Form 10 in relation to the Assessment Year 2018-19 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 2018-19, the petitioner filed returns after the prescribed period along with the application seeking condonation of delay of 151 days in filing the return of income and Form 10 interalia contending that the tax consultant who was entrusted with filing of returns for the petitioner failed to do so 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 and Form 10 was due to genuine

- 3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:17593 WP No. 12007 of 2025

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.

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 and Form 10 within the prescribed period was due to non-compliance on the part of the tax consultant of the petitioner as a result of which, the petitioner could file the I.T. returns and Form 10 subsequent to expiry of the prescribed period. The respondents failed to appreciate that the petitioner could not file its I.T. returns and Form 10 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

- 4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:17593 WP No. 12007 of 2025

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 – A dated 31.01.2024, is hereby set-aside; (iii) The application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay of 151 days in filing Income Tax Returns and Form 10 for the Assessment Year 2018-19, is hereby allowed;

- 5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:17593 WP No. 12007 of 2025

(iv) The respondents are directed to accept the return of income and Form 10 submitted by the petitioner for the aforesaid Assessment Year 2018-19; (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.: 1 Sl No.: 92

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 →