VIDYARANYA VIDYA SAMSTHE (R) vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP/18225/2025HC KarnatakaKAHC01039628202503 November 2025Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR5 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the respondent adopted a hyper-technical approach in refusing to condone the delay. The Court found that the petitioner's inability to file the rectified return within the prescribed period was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances, and sufficient cause, which constituted genuine hardship as contemplated in Circular dated 09.06.2015. The failure to appreciate this led to an erroneous conclusion. Adopting a justice-oriented approach, the Court deemed it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and condone the delay of 670 days in filing the rectified return. The Court directed the respondent to accept the rectified return and allowed the petitioner's application for condonation of delay. However, all rival contentions on all aspects of the matter were kept open, and no opinion was expressed on them.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Vidyaranya Vidya Samsthe (R), an educational institution, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 10.01.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions). This order rejected the petitioner's application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking condonation of a 670-day delay in filing a revised income tax return for Assessment Year 2014-15. The petitioner had initially filed its return within the due date, claiming exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) but failed to claim deduction under Sections 11 and 12. A rectified return was filed online on 03.05.2016, which was rejected. Subsequently, an application under Section 119(2)(b) was filed on 26.08.2022.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the respondent erred in rejecting the petitioner's application for condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for filing a revised return for AY 2014-15, when the delay was due to genuine hardship? Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the delay in filing the rectified return was due to genuine hardship, as contemplated in Circular No.9/2015 dated 09.06.2015. They contended that the respondent committed an error in rejecting the application for condonation of delay by relying on Circular No.11/2024 dated 01.10.2024 without verifying its applicability. The petitioner asserted that the delay was caused by bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances, and sufficient cause. Revenue's Contentions: The respondent-Revenue supported the impugned order, submitting 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 139(1),Section 11,Section 12

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44516 WP No. 18225 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 18225 OF 2025 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

VIDYARANYA VIDYA SAMSTHE (R), VIDYA BHAVAN, VIDYARANYA NAGAR, CHOLURPALYA, BANGALORE – 560 023 KARNATAKA, INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, DR. (SMT) L. N. MAMATHA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, D/O T. L. NANJUNDAIAH, NATURE OF BUSINESS: EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION, PAN NO. AAAAV2909G EMAIL. ID; mamathaln@gmail.com MOB. NO. 9980208516 REGD. UNDER KARNATAKA SOCIETY REGISTRATION ACT, 1960. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. JINITA CHATERJEE, FOR SRI. S. PARTHASARATHI, ADVOCATES)

AND:

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE, MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 027 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ARAVIND V. CHAVAN, ADVOCATE)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10.01.2025 BEARING NO.ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-

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

- 2 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44516 WP No. 18225 of 2025

25/1072065126(1) FOR AY. 2014-15 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE-L) AND ETC.,

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, 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-L dated 10.01.2025 passed by the respondent whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) seeking condonation of delay of 670 days in filing the revised income tax returns in relation to the Assessment Year 2014-15 was rejected by the respondent. 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 2014-15, the petitioner trust had filed the return of income on 17.08.2014 within the due date of filing the original return under Section 139(1) of the Act in Form ITR7 wherein the petitioner trust had claimed the exemption of 15% of unutilized amount under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) read with Rule 2BC(1) but failed to claim deduction of actual expenditure

- 3 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44516 WP No. 18225 of 2025

incurred as the petitioner trust is also eligible for the deduction under Sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as 85% of the gross receipts were utilized towards the objects of the trust. Consequently, the petitioner had filed the Rectified Return in Form ITR-7 online on 03.05.2016, which was rejected on 01.12.2016. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act before the CBDT vide application dated 26.08.2022, which was rejected by the respondent vide the impugned order dated 10.01.2025 by relying on Circular No.11/2024 dated 01.10.2024 without verifying the applicability of the said circular to the present case. It was contended that the delay in filing the Rectified Return of Income 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.

- 4 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44516 WP No. 18225 of 2025

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 Rectified Return of Income within the prescribed period was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause. The respondents failed to appreciate that the petitioner could not file his Rectified Return of Income 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 of 670 days in filing the Rectified Return of

- 5 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44516 WP No. 18225 of 2025

Income 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-L dated 10.01.2025 is hereby set-aside; (iii) The application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay of 670 days in filing Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Year 2014-15, is hereby allowed; (iv) The respondents are directed to accept the Rectified Return of Income submitted by the petitioner for the aforesaid Assessment Year 2014-15. (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. vi) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.

Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MDS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 83

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 →