FUNDERMAX INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES

PDF · subscribers
WP/20719/2025HC KarnatakaKAHC01044450202512 November 2025Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Karnataka, without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the rival contentions, found it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's specific contention that their failure to submit the reply and documents was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances, and sufficient cause. The Court decided to grant one more opportunity to the petitioner to submit their reply and documents. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the first respondent (CBDT) for fresh reconsideration of the application filed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, in accordance with the law. The petitioner was directed to appear before the CBDT on 08.12.2025, and liberty was reserved for the petitioner to submit replies and documents, which the CBDT was to consider after providing a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The order stated that if the petitioner failed to appear on the specified date, the present order would stand automatically recalled.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Fundermax India Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging an order dated 26.09.2024, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner had submitted an application under this section. The CBDT had called upon the petitioner to submit a response and documents by 14.09.2024, later extended to 18.09.2024. The petitioner failed to submit the required reply and documents within the stipulated time. Consequently, the CBDT passed the impugned order rejecting the application. Aggrieved by this rejection, the petitioner approached the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned order dated 26.09.2024, passed by the Respondent No.1 (CBDT) under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is liable to be quashed? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner contended that their inability and omission to submit a reply along with documents was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances, and sufficient cause. They argued that granting one more opportunity would allow them to submit the required reply and documents. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue regarding the merits of the petitioner's claim for a further opportunity. The revenue's role was in issuing the order that the petitioner is challenging.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 119(2)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47138 WP No. 20719 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 20719 OF 2025 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

FUNDERMAX INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, SRI. PRASHANT SAMPANGI REDDY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, SON OF SRI SAMPANGI REDDY SY. NO. 7, HONNENAHALLI, DODDBALLAPUR ROAD, YELAHANKAR HOBLI, BENGALURU – 560 064 PREVIOUSLY AT NO. 13, FIRST FLOOR, 13TH CROSS, WILSON GARDEN, BENGALURU – 560 027 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHREEHARI KUTSA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS CHAIRPERSON, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI – 110 001.

2.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -3(1)(1), BENGALURU 6TH BLOCK, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU – 560 095 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. THIRUMALESH M., ADVOCATE)

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

- 2 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47138 WP No. 20719 of 2025

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1 DATED 26/09/2024 BEARING F.NO. 312/59/2019-OT ISSUED UNDER SECTION 119(2(B) OF THE ACT AND ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-P1.

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 for the following reliefs:-

“a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other suitable writ quashing the order of the Respondent No.1 dated 26.09.2024 bearing F.No.312/59/2019-OT issued under section 119(2)(b) of the Act and enclosed as Annexure-P1. b) And pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity.” 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 the aforesaid proceedings under Section 119(2)(b) filed by the petitioner, the respondent called upon the petitioner to submit his response along with documents on or before 14.09.2024 and

- 3 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47138 WP No. 20719 of 2025

extended up to 18.09.2024 and since the petitioner had not submitted reply or documents, the respondent proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the application, aggrieved by which, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. 4. Though several contentions have been urged by both sides in support of their respective claims, without expressing any opinion on the merits / de-merits of the rival contentions, having regard to the specific contention that the inability and omission on the part of the petitioner to submit a reply along with documents was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause and if one more opportunity is granted, petitioner would submit reply along with documents, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order at Annexure-P1 and remit the matter back to respondent No.1 for reconsideration afresh of the application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) of IT Act in accordance with law. 5. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER

i) The petition is hereby allowed.

- 4 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47138 WP No. 20719 of 2025

ii) The impugned order dated 26.09.2024 at Annexure-P1 passed by respondent No.1 is hereby set aside.

iii) The matter is remitted back to the 1st respondent for reconsideration afresh of the application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) of IT Act in accordance with law.

iv) The petitioner is directed to appear before the 1st respondent on 08.12.2025 without awaiting further notice from the 1st respondent.

v) The liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit replies, documents etc., which shall be considered by the 1st respondent who shall provide sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and hear them and proceed further in accordance with law.

vi) In the event, the Petitioner does not appear before the 1st respondent on 08.12.2025 as stated supra, present order shall stand automatically recalled without further orders.

Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MDS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 51

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 →