K. SARAN SHETTY vs. THE PRI.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

PDF · subscribers
WP/4952/2023HC KarnatakaKAHC01011200202331 March 2023Bench: B M SHYAM PRASAD4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court quashed the impugned order dated 26.12.2022 passed by the 1st Respondent. The Court found that while there was a dichotomy in the reasons provided by the petitioner for the delay, the assertion of a family member's hospitalization was not seriously contested. The Court granted the petitioner an opportunity to file the returns for the relevant assessment year within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. This was subject to the condition that the petitioner would not raise grounds of limitation if any notice under Section 143(2) or orders under Section 143(3) were issued. The ratio decidendi is that even with some inconsistency in reasons, a genuine hardship like hospitalization should be given an opportunity, albeit with conditions to prevent future procedural delays.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, K. Saran Shetty, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 26.12.2022 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (1st Respondent) under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner sought condonation of delay in filing his income tax returns for Assessment Year 2020-2021 under Section 139(1) of the Act. The petitioner initially cited computer system issues but later stated that a family member's hospitalization prevented timely filing. The 1st Respondent refused condonation, deeming the reason not genuine due to this dichotomy. The petitioner is aggrieved by this refusal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the 1st Respondent was justified in refusing to condone the delay in filing the income tax return for Assessment Year 2020-2021 under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the grounds that the reasons provided by the petitioner were not genuine? Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that there was a dichotomy in the reasons provided for the delay, but the hospitalization of a family member was not seriously contested. The petitioner sought an opportunity to file the returns. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue, through the 1st Respondent's order, opined that the reason assigned for the delay was not genuine due to the conflicting explanations provided by the petitioner.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 119(2)(b),Section 139(1),Section 143(2),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

WP No. 4952 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4952 OF 2023 (T-IT)

BETWEEN:

K. SARAN SHETTY AGED 56 YEARS, D NO 14-4-404/1, PANCHAVATI WINES, ASHIRVAD BUILDING, FALNIR ROAD, MANGALORE - 575 002.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. M R.VANAJA, ADVOCATE) AND:

1.

THE PRI.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, PLOT NO. EDC COMPLEX, PATTO PLAZA, PANAJI, GOA - 403 001.

2.

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1) AAYAKAR SAMPARK KANDRA MANGALORE - 575 001.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND AND SRI.M.DILIP, ADVOCATES)

Digitally signed by NARASIMHA MURTHY VANAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

WP No. 4952 of 2023

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 26.12.2022 PASSED UNDER SECTION 119(2)(b) OF THE ACT FOR THE ASST YEAR 2020-21 (ANNEXURE-D).

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN "B" GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER

The petitioner has called in question the first respondent's order dated 26.12.2022 (Annexure-D) under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner in filing this application has sought for condonation of delay in filing the returns under Section 139(1) of the I.T. Act for the assessment year 2020-2021. It is seen from the records that if in the application for condonation of delay the petitioner has cited issues with the computer system, in response to the notices given, the petitioner has stated that a member of his family was hospitalized and therefore, he could not file the returns within

- 3 -

WP No. 4952 of 2023

time. This dichotomy has perhaps persuaded the first respondent to refuse condonation of delay opining that the reason assigned is not genuine.

However, the assertion that the petitioner's family member was hospitalized is not seriously contested. The petitioner must have an opportunity, but on terms. The petitioner must file returns within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and given the indulgence, the petitioner must not raise grounds of limitation, if in case there is any reason for issuance of notice under Section 143(2) of the I.T.Act and orders under Section 143(3) of the I.T.Act.

Hence, the petition stands disposed of quashing the impugned order dated 26.12.2022 (Annexure-D) with liberty to the petitioner to file returns for the relevant assessment year under Section 139(1) of the I.T.Act within three [3] months from the date of

- 4 -

WP No. 4952 of 2023

receipt of a certified copy of this order subject to the condition as aforesaid.

SD/- JUDGE

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 →