SRI. MAHENDER KUMAR GUPTA vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP/8059/2025HC KarnatakaKAHC01017513202528 March 2025Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR5 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned order dated 31.01.2025. The Court found that the respondents had adopted a hyper-technical approach in refusing to condone the delay. It was held that the petitioner's inability to file returns within the prescribed period was due to bonafide reasons, sufficient cause, and unavoidable circumstances, constituting genuine hardship as contemplated in Circular No. 9/2015. The Court opined that the respondents failed to appreciate these factors, leading to an erroneous conclusion. The Court deemed it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and condone the delay. The application for condonation of delay was allowed, and the respondents were directed to accept the returns for AY 2023-24 and reconsider the petitioner's claim on merits after providing an opportunity to the petitioner.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sri. Mahender Kumar Gupta, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 31.01.2025 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru. This order rejected the petitioner's application filed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking condonation of delay in filing his income tax returns for the Assessment Year 2023-24. The petitioner contended that he became aware of a property sale and the corresponding TDS deduction only after receiving a Memo dated 18.01.2024, which prevented him from filing returns within the due date. He argued this constituted genuine hardship as per Circular No. 9/2015.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax erred in rejecting the petitioner's application for condonation of delay in filing income tax returns for AY 2023-24 under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite the petitioner pleading genuine hardship due to late discovery of property sale and TDS credit in Form 26AS. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the delay was due to genuine hardship, as he only became aware of the property sale and TDS credit after receiving a Memo dated 18.01.2024. He relied on Circular No. 9/2015, stating the respondent committed an error in rejecting the condonation application. Revenue's Contention: The revenue supported the impugned order and submitted that the petition had no merit and was liable to be dismissed.

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:13468 WP No. 8059 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 8059 OF 2025 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

SRI. MAHENDER KUMAR GUPTA, SON OF LATE N. R. GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, NO.27, 20TH MAIN ROAD, 8TH BOCK, KHB COLONY, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE – 560 095 PAN. AAIPM6142M (SENIOR CITIZENSHIP BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED) …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU - 2, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU – 560 095.

2.

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -4(3)(2), BANGALORE, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU – 560 095. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER UNDER SEC 119(2)(b) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961

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

- 2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:13468 WP No. 8059 of 2025

DATED 31.01.2025 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 BEARING DIN AND ORDER NO. ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-25/1072766215(1) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2023-24 AND REFERRED AS ANNEXURE- A AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, 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-A dated 31.01.2025 passed by respondent No.1, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) seeking condonation of delay in filing the income tax returns in relation to the Assessment Year 2023-24 was rejected by respondent No.1.

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 2023-24, the petitioner filed returns after the prescribed period along with the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the returns interalia contending that the petitioner came to know regarding the sale of property and corresponding TDS deduction to be credited in Form

- 3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:13468 WP No. 8059 of 2025

26AS only after receipt of Memo dated 18.01.2024 and hence, 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 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 prescribed period was because the petitioner came to know regarding the sale of property and corresponding TDS deduction to be credited in Form 26AS only after receipt of Memo dated 18.01.2024 and hence, due to bonafide reasons, sufficient cause and unavoidable circumstances, the petitioner filed the I.T. returns

- 4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:13468 WP No. 8059 of 2025

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. (ii) The impugned order at annexure-A dated 31.01.2025 passed by respondent No.1 is hereby set aside.

- 5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:13468 WP No. 8059 of 2025

(iii) The application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay in filing Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Year 2023-24, is hereby allowed; (iv) The respondents are directed to accept the returns submitted by the petitioner for the aforesaid Assessment Year 2023-24. (vi) The matter is remitted back to the respondent for reconsideration of the claim of the petitioner on merits, in accordance with law, after providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner (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

BMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28

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 →