SMT DANAMMA CHENNABASAVAIAH EDUCATIONAL TRUST vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP/28301/2023HC KarnatakaKAHC01065824202310 November 2025Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR5 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the respondents had adopted a hyper-technical approach in refusing to condone the delay. The Court found that the petitioner's inability to file Form 10B within the prescribed period was due to their ill-health (Covid-19 infection), which constituted bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances, and sufficient cause, amounting to genuine hardship as per Circular No. 9/2015. 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, the application for condonation of delay was allowed, and the respondents were directed to consider the Form 10B submitted by the petitioner for Assessment Year 2021-22, with liberty to verify the claim and proceed further in accordance with law.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Smt Danamma Chennabasavaiah Educational Trust, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging an order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner also sought to quash an intimation under Section 143(1) and a direction to condone the delay in filing Form 10B for Assessment Year 2021-22. The petitioner contended that they were infected with Covid-19 from November 18, 2021, to March 2, 2022, which caused a delay of 26 days in filing Form 10B due to bonafide reasons and unavoidable circumstances. The respondents supported the impugned order, arguing no merit in the petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, rejecting the petitioner's application for condonation of delay in filing Form 10B for Assessment Year 2021-22, is sustainable in law? Assessee's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the delay in filing Form 10B was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances, and sufficient cause, specifically their Covid-19 infection. They contended that this constituted genuine hardship as contemplated in Circular No. 9/2015 dated June 9, 2015, and therefore, the rejection of their condonation application was an error. Revenue's Arguments: The respondents 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),Section 143(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45653 WP No. 28301 of 2023

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. 28301 OF 2023 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

SMT DANAMMA CHENNABASAVAIAH EDUCATIONAL TRUST REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SMT USHA GANGADHARA, W/O SRI C GANGADHARA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OFFICE AT NO. 367, COTTONPET, GANESHA TEMPLE STREET, COTTONPET - 563101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANNAMALAI.S,ADVOCATE) AND:

1.

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE, MISSION ROAD,

BENGALURU – 560 027.

2.

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, IT OFFICE, KOLAR NEW EXTENSION

KOLAR – 563 101.

3.

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS) WARD-3, UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE, MISSION ROAD,

BENGALURU – 560 027.

4.

THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS-RANGE, UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE, MISSION ROAD,

BENGALURU – 560 027.

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

- 2 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45653 WP No. 28301 of 2023

5.

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CENTRALISED PROCESSING CENTRE, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, BENGALURU - 560 500. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SUSHAL TIWARI, ADVOCATE)

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED U/S 119(2)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 BEARING DIN AND ORDER NO. ITBA/COM/F/17/2023-24/1058114797(1) DTD 21.11.2023 PASSED BY THE R- 1 ENCLOSED AND REFERRED AS ANNX-A1.

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 in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the order passed under Section 119(2) (b) of the Income Tax Act 1961 bearing DIN and Order Number: ITBA/COM/F/17/2023- 24/1058114797(1) dated: 21.11.2023 passed by the respondent No.1 enclosed and referred as Annexure-A1.

b) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961 by the Respondent No. 5 dated: 04/10/2022 bearing DIN Number: CPC/2122/A7/252935279, is enclosed and referred as Annexure-A2.

c) Issue a writ of mandamus or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the Respondent No.1 to condone the delay in filing of Form 10B for the assessment

- 3 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45653 WP No. 28301 of 2023

year 2021-22 and consequently allow the claim made in the return of income by the petitioner.

d) Pass any order/s as deems fit to this Hon’ble Court in the interest of justice.”

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 Form 10B after the prescribed period along with the application seeking condonation of delay of 26 days in filing Form 10B returns interalia contending that the petitioner was infected with Covid-19 disease during the period from 18.11.2021 till 02.03.2022 and owing to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, the petitioner was not in a position to file Form 10B 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 petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) of the I.T.Act, which deserves to be set aside.

- 4 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45653 WP No. 28301 of 2023

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 that 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 within the prescribed period was due to the ill-health of the petitioner, who had filed Form 10B subsequent to expiry of the prescribed period. 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 conclusion warranting interference by this Court in the present petition.

6.

Under these circumstances, by adopting a 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

- 5 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45653 WP No. 28301 of 2023

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: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned order at Annexure-A1 dated 21.11.2023, is hereby set-aside; (iii) The application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay of 26 days in filing Form 10B for the Assessment Year 2021-22, is hereby allowed; (iv) The respondents are directed to consider Form 10B 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

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 →