SAYED ABDUL WAHID vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP/5895/2025HC KarnatakaKAHC01010526202520 March 2025Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR5 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order dated 25.11.2024. The Court found that the respondent had adopted a hyper-technical approach in rejecting the condonation of delay application without appreciating that the petitioner's inability to file returns within the prescribed period was due to the COVID-19 pandemic and other bonafide reasons, which constituted genuine hardship as per Circular No. 9/2015. The Court adopted a justice-oriented approach, deeming it just and appropriate to condone the delay. The application for condonation of delay of 107 days for AY 2021-22 was allowed, and the respondents were directed to accept the returns filed by the petitioner. The respondents were also granted liberty to verify the petitioner's claim and proceed further in accordance with law.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sayed Abdul Wahid, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging an order dated 25.11.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (IT). This order rejected the petitioner's application filed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking condonation of a 107-day delay in filing his income tax returns for the Assessment Year 2021-2022. The petitioner contended that the delay was due to the COVID-19 pandemic, unavoidable circumstances, and bonafide reasons, constituting genuine hardship as per Circular No. 9/2015. The Revenue supported the impugned order, arguing the petition lacked merit.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (IT) erred in rejecting the petitioner's application for condonation of delay in filing income tax returns for AY 2021-22 under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by adopting a hyper-technical approach. Assessee's Contentions: - The delay of 107 days in filing the income tax returns for AY 2021-22 was due to the COVID-19 pandemic, bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances, and sufficient cause, constituting genuine hardship as contemplated in Circular No. 9/2015 dated 09.06.2015. - The respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax) committed an error in rejecting the condonation application. Revenue's Contentions: - The petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. - The Revenue supported the impugned order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 119(2)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:12200 WP No. 5895 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 5895 OF 2025 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

SAYED ABDUL WAHID AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, C/O KHASIM KARKALA SAYED MOHEMAD, SAYED MANZIL, ANCHIKATTE, KARKALA, UDUPI DISTRICT, KARNATAKA 576 117. PAN NO. AEPPW7755R …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BALRAM R RAO.,ADVOCATE) AND:

1.

INCOME TAX OFFICER ITO INTERNATIONAL TAX WARD, C.R. BUILDING, N.G. ROAD, ATTAWARA, MANGALURU, KARNATAKA- 575 001.

2.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT), BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA – 560 095.

3.

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AYAKAR BHAVAN, PLOT NO.05, EDC COMPLEX, PATTO PLAZA, PANAJI, GOA- 403 001. …RESPONDENTS

Digitally signed by LEELAVATHI S R Location: High Court of Karnataka

- 2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:12200 WP No. 5895 of 2025

(BY SRI.E.T. SANMATHI AND SRI. DILIP.M, ADVOCATES)

THIS WP IS FILED PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA CALLING FOR THE RECORDS OF THE PETITIONER -S CASE AND AFTER EXAMINING THE LEGALITY AND VALIDITY THEREOF BE PLEASED TO QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED REJECTION ORDER DATED 25.11.2024 PASSED IN CONNECTION WITH THE CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 119(2)(B) OF THE ACT IN DIN AND ORDER NO . ITBA/COM/F/17/2024- 25/1070592679(1) (ANNEXURE-M) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2021-22, AND ETC.

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 quashing of the impugned order at Annexure-M dated 25.11.2024 passed by the respondent No.2, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) seeking condonation of delay of 107 days in filing the income tax returns in relation to the Assessment Year 2021-2022 was rejected by the respondent No.2.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

- 3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:12200 WP No. 5895 of 2025

3.

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in relation to the aforesaid Assessment Year 2021-22, the petitioner filed returns after the prescribed period along with the application seeking condonation of delay of 107 days in filing the returns interalia contending that due to covid-19 pandemic and owing to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, the petitioner was not in a position to file the returns 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 respondent 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.

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 I.T. returns within the

- 4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:12200 WP No. 5895 of 2025

prescribed period was due to covid-19 pandemic, who filed the I.T. returns subsequent to expiry of the prescribed period. The respondents failed to appreciate that the petitioner could not file his I.T. returns 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, adopting justice oriented approach and having regard to valid and sufficient ground pleaded by the petitioner in support of his 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.

- 5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:12200 WP No. 5895 of 2025

(ii) The impugned order at Annexure-M dated 25.11.2024 is hereby set-aside; (iii) The application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay of 107 days in filing Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Year 2021-22, is hereby allowed; (iv) The respondents are directed to accept the returns 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

MDS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 73

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 →