M/S TELEVAC PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE PRINICPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP/31185/2026HC KarnatakaKAHC01068434202607 October 2026Bench: B M SHYAM PRASAD6 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the circumstances presented by the petitioner, namely the accountant's resignation and the in-charge Director's cataract surgery, should be considered to assess genuine hardship. The Court found the 1st Respondent's reasoning that cataract surgery is elective and that returns should have been prioritized over surgery to be a strenuous and hyper-technical reading of the situation. Similarly, the reasoning that other directors could have filed the returns was also deemed hyper-technical. The Court opined that these circumstances, along with the fact that the condonation application was filed within 3-3.5 months from the last date, warranted interference with the 1st Respondent's order. The Court directed the returns filed by the petitioner, along with the application, to be processed in accordance with law.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s Televac Private Limited, failed to file its Income Tax Return (ITR) for Assessment Year (AY) 2025-26 by the due date of 31.10.2025. They filed an application on 19.02.2026 seeking condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the period between 01.10.2025 and 18.02.2026. The delay was attributed to the abrupt resignation of their accountant on 28.04.2025 and the in-charge Director undergoing cataract surgery on 10.11.2025. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (1st Respondent) rejected this application by an order dated 28.08.2026, citing that the reasons provided did not constitute genuine hardship. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging this order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner has made out a case to reasonably infer genuine hardship for condoning the delay in filing the return of income for AY 2025-26, under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the abrupt resignation of their accountant and the in-charge Director's cataract surgery constituted genuine hardship, preventing them from filing the return on time. They contended that the 1st Respondent's rejection was arbitrary and based on a hyper-technical approach. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue, through the 1st Respondent's order, argued that the accountant's resignation and the Director's cataract surgery (described as an elective surgery) did not amount to genuine hardship. They also reasoned that other directors could have filed the returns as they had signed the audited accounts.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 119(2)(b),Section 139

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 31185 OF 2026 (T-IT)

BETWEEN:

M/S TELEVAC PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 106, NADIKERAPPA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, VISWANEEDHAM POST OFFICE, ANDRAHALLI MAIN ROAD, NEAR PEENYA II STAGE, BENGALURU 560 091 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, MR. PRAKASH KG.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. ABHINAY.S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

THE PRINICPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU 560095.

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HC-KAR

2.

THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU 560095.

3.

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BMTC BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560095.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.E.I. SANMATHI., ADVOCATE A/W SRI. NIRMAL MATHEW., ADVOCATE)

THIS WP IS FILED PRAYING TO A) QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO. ITBA/COM/F/17/2026-27/1092659659(1) DATED 28.08.2026 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT REJECTING THE PETITIONER'S CONDONATION APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 119(2)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, AS BEING ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL, PERVERSE AND NON-EST IN LAW (VIDE ANNEXURE-A); B) CONSEQUENTLY, TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE PETITIONER'S BELATED RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2025-26 UNDER SECTION 119(2)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, AND TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO ACCEPT AND PROCESS THE SAID RETURN, INCLUDING THE REFUND OF RS.11,71,447/- (TDS) AND CARRY FORWARD OF THE LOSS OF HC-KAR RS.28,02,567/-, AND/OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO REMAND THE MATTER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, WITH A DIRECTION TO CONSIDER THE GENUINE HARDSHIP PLEADED BY THE PETITIONER AS ANNX-A;

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is a private limited company. It has not filed its returns for the assessment year 2025-26 by 31.10.2025 as contemplated under Section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short, ‘the IT Act’], but the petitioner has filed an application on 19.02.2026 for leave to file the original ITR seeking condonation of delay as of the date of the application. The petitioner seeks for condonation of delay between 01.10.2025 to 18.02.2026. The first respondent has rejected this application by the impugned order dated 28.08.2026 [Annexure-A].

HC-KAR

2.

The first respondent has reasoned that the petitioner’s accountant resigning abruptly on 28.04.2025 or that the petitioner’s in-charge Director had to undergo a cataract surgery on 10.11.2025 do not constitute reason to infer genuine hardship and therefore there cannot be any condonation. Sri. Abhinay S., the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri. E.I. Sanmathi and Sri Nirmal Mathew, a learned senior standing counsel/learned standing counsel for the respondents who accept notice for the respondents, are heard for the disposal of the petition examining:

Whether the petitioner has made out a case to reasonably infer genuine hardship and whether the first respondent has failed to consider the relevant circumstances.

3.

It is undisputed that in the AGM held on 30.09.2025 the petitioner’s audited balance sheet and statement of profit and loss account for the HC-KAR assessment year 2025-26 [wrongly referred to by the first respondent as 2024-25] are approved. If the petitioner’s Director [Sri Prakash K.G.] had to undergo surgery on 10.11.2025 and its accountant resigned on 28.11.2025, these circumstances bring in constraints that should be considered to assess whether there was genuine hardship. The first respondent’s reasoning that cataract surgery is an elective surgery and filing of returns ought to have been prioritized over undergoing a surgery is a very strenuous reading of the circumstances and such reasoning fall foul of the settled principle that reasons assigned must be considered as it would be in the normal course without taking a hyper- technical approach.

4.

The first respondent’s other reasoning that the other two Directors had signed the audited books of account and that they could have filed the returns would also be in the same vein of taking a hyper- HC-KAR technical approach without paying heed to what could be without a deliberate intention. These two circumstances are material as is the fact that notwithstanding the two circumstances relied upon, the application for condonation is filed within 3 - 3 ½ months from the last date. In the circumstances, the question is answered in favour of the petitioner opining that there must be interference with the first respondent's order calling upon the returns filed by the petitioner along with the application to be processed in accordance with law. It is ordered accordingly.

Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

SA Ct:sr

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 →