KAVERI VANITA SEVASHRAMA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP/26467/2025HC KarnatakaKAHC01057082202510 November 2025Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR6 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the respondents adopted a hyper-technical approach in refusing to condone the delay. The court found that the inability to file Form 10B and ITR-7 within the prescribed period was due to the ill-health and subsequent demise of the executive trustee, who was responsible for filing these documents. The court considered these as bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances, and sufficient cause, constituting genuine hardship as per Circular No. 9/2015. The failure of the respondents to appreciate this led to an erroneous conclusion. Therefore, the court deemed it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and condone the delay. The petition was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the application for condonation of delay was allowed. The respondents were directed to consider the submitted Form 10B and ITR-7 and proceed further in accordance with law, with liberty to verify the petitioner's claim.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kaveri Vanita Sevashrama, registered under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka. The petition challenged an order dated April 17, 2025, passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemptions), Respondent No. 2, rejecting the petitioner's application for condonation of delay in filing Form 10B and ITR-7 for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The petitioner also sought to quash an intimation under Section 143(1) dated March 14, 2015, and a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to condone the delay. The delay in filing was stated to be 127 days.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's application for condonation of delay in filing Form 10B and ITR-7 for AY 2013-14 by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemptions) under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was erroneous. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the delay was due to the severe medical illness and subsequent demise of its executive trustee and managerial person. These were bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances, and sufficient cause, constituting genuine hardship as contemplated by Circular No. 9/2015 dated June 9, 2015. The respondents committed an error in rejecting the condonation application. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order and submitted that the petition had no merit and was liable to be dismissed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 119(2)(b),Section 143(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45654 WP No. 26467 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 26467 OF 2025 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

KAVERI VANITA SEVASHRAMA REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, 61/1, 65/1, HOASAHALLI PALYA ROAD, PUTTASWAMY LAYOUT, HESARAGHATTA, BAGALORE-560 088, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SUMA. M D/O. MUDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 61/1, 65/1, HOASAHALLI PALYA ROAD, PUTTASWAMY LAYOUT, HESARAGHATTA, BANGALORE- 560 088. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVI SHANKAR.S.V, ADVOCATE) AND:

1.

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTIONS WARD-1, BANGALORE-560 001.

2.

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

3.

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CENTRALIZED PROCESSING

CENTRE POST BAG NO.2,

ELECTRONIC CITY POST OFFICE, BANGALORE-560 500. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ARAVIND.V. CHAVAN, ADVOCATE)

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

- 2 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45654 WP No. 26467 of 2025

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR A DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER OF REJECTION OF CONDONATION APPLICATION OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT) DATED 17/04/2025 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN DIN ITBA/COM/F/17/2025- 26/1075672678(1) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 (ANNEXURE-A).

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;

“ i) Issue a writ of certiorari or a direction in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the order of rejection of condonation application for the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( for shot ‘ the Act’ ) dated: 17/04/2025 passed by the Respondent No.2 in DIN ITBA/COM/F/17/2025- 26/1075672678(1) for the assessment year 2013-14 (Annexure-A).

ii) Issue a writ of certiorari or a direction in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the intimation under Section 143 (1) of the Act, 1961 ( for short ‘ the Act’) dated: 14/03/2015 passed by the Respondent NO.3 in DIN: 119247020070314 for the assessment year 2013-14 (Annexure-A1).

iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or a direction in the nature of writ of mandamus directing to the respondents condone

- 3 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45654 WP No. 26467 of 2025

the delay in filing the Form 10B and ITR-7 for the assessment year 2013-14 and

iv) 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 relation to the aforesaid Assessment Year 2013-14, the petitioner filed Form 10B and ITR-7 after the prescribed period along with the application seeking condonation of delay of 127 days in filing Form 10B and ITR-7 returns interalia contending that the executive trustee and the managerial person of the affairs of the petitioner was suffering from several medical illness which later resulted into the demise of such trustee and owing to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, the petitioner was not in a position to file Form 10B and ITR-7 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 respondents committed an error in rejecting the application for condonation of delay filed by the

- 4 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45654 WP No. 26467 of 2025

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 Form 10B and ITR-7 within the prescribed period was due to the ill-health and subsequent demise of the executive trustee of the petitioner who had filed Form 10B and ITR-7 subsequent to expiry of the prescribed period after appointing a new executive trustee. The respondents failed to appreciate that the petitioner could not file Form 10B 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

- 5 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45654 WP No. 26467 of 2025

conclusion warranting interference by this Court in the present petition.

6.

Under these circumstances, by adopting justice oriented approach and having regard to valid and sufficient grounds pleaded by the petitioner in support of its 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 17.04.2025, is hereby set-aside; (iii) The application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay of 127 days in filing Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Year 2013-14, is hereby allowed;

(iv) The respondents are directed to consider Form 10B and ITR-7 submitted by the petitioner for the aforesaid Assessment Year 2013-14;

- 6 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45654 WP No. 26467 of 2025

(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

Srl.

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 →