CRYPTOGRAPH TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP/21098/2025HC KarnatakaKAHC01046475202530 October 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. The Court found that the respondents had adopted a hyper-technical approach in rejecting the application for condonation of delay. It was held that the inability of the petitioner to file returns within the prescribed period was due to the health issues of its Director and the financial losses incurred by the company. These factors constituted bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances, and sufficient cause, amounting to genuine hardship as contemplated by Circular No. 9/2015. The Court adopted a justice-oriented approach, deeming it just and appropriate to condone the 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 returns filed by the petitioner for Assessment Year 2022-23, while reserving liberty to verify the claims and proceed in accordance with law.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Cryptograph Technologies Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 16.02.2024 passed by the Chief 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 237-day delay in filing its income tax returns for Assessment Year 2022-23. The petitioner contended that the delay was due to the ill health of its Director and significant financial losses incurred by the company, constituting bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances, and sufficient cause. The Revenue supported the impugned order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's application for condonation of delay in filing income tax returns for Assessment Year 2022-23 under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was erroneous, considering the grounds of ill health of the Director and financial losses suffered by the company. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the delay was attributable to genuine hardship, citing the ill health of its Director and substantial losses, which prevented timely filing. They relied on Circular No. 9/2015 dated 09.06.2015, which provides for condonation of delay in cases of genuine hardship, and contended that the respondent committed an error in rejecting the application. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue supported the impugned order, submitting 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 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43477 WP No. 21098 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 21098 OF 2025 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

CRYPTOGRAPH TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED NO.87, 3RD FLOOR, 27TH MAIN, OPP. HSR LAYOUT POLICE STATION SECTOR-1, HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU – 560 102 REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI. VEERAMACHANENI SRIKANTH, SON OF SRI VEERAMACHANENI, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHREEHARI KUTSA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BENGALURU - 01, BENGALURU CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, QUEEN’S ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001

2.

ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE 2(1), BENGALURU INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, BMTC BUILDING, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE, 80FT ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU – 560 095

3.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), BENGALURU INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, BMTC BUILDING, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE, 80FT ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU – 560 095 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE)

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

- 2 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43477 WP No. 21098 of 2025

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE DIGITALLY SIGNED AND ELECTRONICALLY ISSUED ORDER UNDER SECTION 119(2)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DATED 16/02/2024 BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2022-23 WHICH BEARS THE DIN VIZ., VIZ., DIN ITBA/COM/F/17/2023- 24/1061039074 (1) WHICH IS ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE –E AND ETC.,

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–E dated 16.02.2024 passed by the respondent No.1. whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) seeking condonation of delay in filing the income tax returns in relation to the Assessment Year 2022-23 was rejected by 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 2022-23, the petitioner filed returns after the prescribed period along with the application seeking condonation of delay of 237 days in filing the returns

- 3 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43477 WP No. 21098 of 2025

interalia contending that the Director of the petitioner-Company, who was handling the affairs of the Company was suffering from ill health and that the company had also incurred huge loss 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, 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 health issues of the Director of the petitioner-Company and also due to loss suffered by the Company,

- 4 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43477 WP No. 21098 of 2025

who 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 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.

- 5 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43477 WP No. 21098 of 2025

(ii) The impugned order at Annexure–E dated 16.02.2024 passed by respondent No.1, is hereby set-aside; (iii) The application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay of 237 days in filing Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Year 2022-23 is hereby allowed; (iv) The respondents are directed to accept the returns submitted by the petitioner for the aforesaid Assessment Year 2022-23; (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

BMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37

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 →