INDIA COFFEE TRUST vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP/36490/2024HC KarnatakaKAHC01073805202425 February 2025Bench: S.G.PANDIT5 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the impugned order passed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, required to be set aside. The Court found that the Principal Commissioner had proceeded on the incorrect premise that the revised return was filed subsequent to the intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act. The facts on record indicated that the original return was filed on September 30, 2012, and the revised return on July 25, 2013, while the Section 143(1) intimation was issued much later on March 25, 2014. The Court also noted that the Assessing Officer had acknowledged that the original return was filed before the due date under Section 139(1), suggesting that the delay in filing the revised return could be condoned. The issue of whether the petitioner had a six-year time limit for filing an application for condonation of delay was left open to be urged before the Principal Commissioner.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, India Coffee Trust, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated March 28, 2019, passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This order refused to condone the delay in filing a revised return for Assessment Year 2012-13. The petitioner contended that they initially filed a return on September 30, 2012, and a second revised return on July 25, 2013. The Assessing Authority issued an intimation under Section 143(1) on March 25, 2014. The petitioner argued that the revised return was filed *before* the Section 143(1) intimation and that their application for condonation of delay was within the six-year time limit, contrary to the impugned order's findings.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, refusing to condone the delay in filing the revised return, is sustainable in law, considering the factual matrix of the case? Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the Principal Commissioner erred in holding that the revised return was filed subsequent to the intimation under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. They asserted that the revised return was filed well before the Section 143(1) intimation. Furthermore, the petitioner contended that their application for condonation of delay was within the permissible six-year time limit, and the Principal Commissioner's observation to the contrary was incorrect. The petitioner relied on the fact that the original return was filed before the due date under Section 139(1). Revenue's Contentions: The revenue supported the order passed by the Principal Commissioner and prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 119(2)(b),Section 143(1),Section 139(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:8384 WP No. 36490 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO. 36490 OF 2024 (T-IT)

BETWEEN:

INDIA COFFEE TRUST A REGISTERED INDIAN TRUST DEED UNDER ACT 1882, REPRESENTED BY ITS TRUSTEE SRI. ANIL BHANDARI SON OF SRI. K.L. BHANDARI AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, NO.1 C/O COFFEE BOARD OF INDIA DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANNAMALAI S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,BENGALURU-1, 5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 095.

2.

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2) (1), BANGALORE, 1ST FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 095 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. DILIP, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:8384 WP No. 36490 of 2024

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 119(2)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN F.NO. 119(2)(B)PR.CIT.B-1/2018-19/24 DATED 28.03.2019 FOR AY 2012-13 AND REFERRED AS ANNEXURE A1 AND ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

ORAL ORDER

Though the matter is listed for Preliminary Hearing, the same is taken up for disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the correctness or otherwise of the order under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘1961 Act’) bearing F.No.119(2)(b)Pr.CIT.B-1/2018-19/24 dated 28.03.2019 (Annexure-A1), refusing to condone the delay in filing the revised return. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner initially filed return on 30.09.2012 in the status of Trust and second revised return was filed in the status of Association of Persons on 25.07.2013. He submits that

- 3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:8384 WP No. 36490 of 2024

thereafter, the respondent-Authorities issued intimation under Section 143(1) of 1961 Act on 25.03.2014. Respondent No.1 proceeded to consider the application of the petitioner filed under Section 119(2)(b) of 1961 Act, on the premise that second revised return is filed subsequent to issuance of intimation under Section 143(1) of 1961 Act. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had filed revised return much prior to issuance of intimation under Section 143(1) of 1961 Act on 25.03.2014. Learned counsel would further submit that the observation of respondent No.1 that Assessee has come up for condonation of delay after lapse of three years is also not proper and correct since the petitioner is well within six years time limit.

3.

On the other hand, learned counsel Sri. Dilip.M., supports the order passed by respondent No.1 and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

4.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, I am of the view that the impugned order passed under Section 119(2)(b) of 1961 Act (Annexure-A1) dated 28.03.2019 requires to be set

- 4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:8384 WP No. 36490 of 2024

aside with a direction to respondent No.1 to reconsider the application of the petitioner filed under Section 119(2)(b) of 1961 Act.

5.

A perusal of the impugned order makes it abundantly clear that respondent No.1 proceeded on the premise that revised return filed by the petitioner is subsequent to intimation under Section 143(1) of 1961 Act, but it is factually not correct. Initially return was filed on 30.09.2012 and revised return was filed on 25.07.2013, whereas intimation under Section 143(1) of 1961 Act was issued much subsequently on 25.03.2014. Moreover, the impugned order also indicates that the Assessing Officer taking note of the fact that the original return was filed before the due date provided under Section 139(1) of 1961 Act, had submitted that delay in filing revised return of income could be condoned.

6.

Whether the petitioner had time limit of six years to file application for condonation of delay in filing revised return in the facts and circumstances is kept open and same could be urged before respondent No.1.

- 5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:8384 WP No. 36490 of 2024

7.

In view of the above, the following: ORDER

(a) Writ petition is allowed;

(b) Impugned order at Annexure-A1 bearing F.No.119(2)(b)/Pr.CIT.B-1/2018-19/24 dated 28.03.2019 is quashed;

(c) The matter is remitted back to respondent No.1 to reconsider the application of the petitioner filed under Section 119(2)(b) of 1961 Act.

(d) Respondent No.1 shall consider the above application and pass appropriate order within four weeks from today. In meanwhile, the petitioner is permitted to file additional pleadings if any.

SD/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

SMJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16

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 →