SRI JAI PRAKASH IYENGAR vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP/12173/2025HC KarnatakaKAHC01026187202528 April 2025Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR5 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the respondent-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 returns within the stipulated period was a direct consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting lockdowns, which prevented him from traveling to India. These circumstances were considered bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances, and sufficient cause, constituting genuine hardship as outlined in Circular No. 9/2015. The Court concluded that the Commissioner's failure to appreciate these factors led to an erroneous decision. Consequently, the Court deemed it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order, allow the petitioner's application for condonation of delay, and direct the respondents to accept the return of income filed by the petitioner for Assessment Year 2021-22. The respondents were also granted liberty to verify the petitioner's claims and proceed further in accordance with law.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sri Jai Prakash Iyengar, sought to quash an order dated 15.12.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (IT). This order rejected the petitioner's application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for condonation of a 97-day delay in filing his income tax returns for Assessment Year 2021-22. The petitioner, a resident of the USA, claimed the delay was due to the COVID-19 pandemic, preventing him from traveling to India. He argued that these were bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances, and sufficient cause, constituting 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 in filing income tax returns for Assessment Year 2021-22 under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite the delay being attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic and constituting genuine hardship. Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that his inability to file returns within the prescribed period was due to his residence in the USA and the prevailing COVID-19 pandemic, which prevented him from traveling to India. He contended that these were bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances, and sufficient cause, amounting to genuine hardship as contemplated by Circular No. 9/2015. Therefore, the rejection of his condonation application by the respondent was erroneous. Revenue's Contentions: The respondents-Revenue supported the impugned order and submitted that the petition lacked merit and 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:17592 WP No. 12173 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. 12173 OF 2025 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

SRI JAI PRAKASH IYENGAR ALSO KNOWN AS GOVINDSWAMI IYENGAR JAIPRAKASH, AGED 76 YEARS, S/O GOVINDSWAMI IYENGAR, C/O M/S JANARDHAN AND ASSOCIATES, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, NO. 103, EMBASSY CENTRE, NO.11, CRESCENT ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVI SHANKAR S V.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT), BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD,

6TH BLOCK, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE,

KORAMANGALA,

BANGALORE - 560 095.

2.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD INTL. TAXATION 1(2),

BANGALORE – 560 095. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. E.I.SANMATHI, AND SRI. M.DILIP, ADVOCATES)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 119(2)(b) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT) DTD. 15.12.2023 PASSED BY THE R-1 IN DIN NO. ITBA/COM/F/17/2023-24/1058782792(1) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2021-22 (ANNX-A).

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

- 2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:17592 WP No. 12173 of 2025

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 – A dated 15.12.2023 passed by the respondent No.1, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) seeking condonation of delay of 97 days in filing the income tax returns in relation to the Assessment Year 2021-22 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 2021-22, the petitioner filed returns after the prescribed period along with the application seeking condonation of delay of 97 days in filing the return of income interalia contending that the petitioner is a resident of United States of America and due to Covid-19 pandemic prevailing across the world could not come to India and owing to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, the

- 3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:17592 WP No. 12173 of 2025

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.

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 was due to the inability of the petitioner to come to India as a result of lockdown in most of the countries due to covid-19 pandemic as a result of which, the petitioner 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

- 4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:17592 WP No. 12173 of 2025

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 – A dated 15.12.2023, is hereby set-aside; (iii) The application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay of 97 days in filing Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Year 2021-22, is hereby allowed;

- 5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:17592 WP No. 12173 of 2025

(iv) The respondents are directed to accept the return of income submitted by the petitioner for the aforesaid Assessment Year 2021-22; (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.: 67

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 →