LALITHA URS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PCIT

PDF · subscribers
WP/9358/2025HC KarnatakaKAHC01019064202523 October 2025Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR5 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the respondent had adopted a hyper-technical approach in refusing to condone the delay of 121 days. The Court found that the petitioner, as the wife of the deceased assessee, had filed the returns belatedly due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances, and sufficient cause, constituting genuine hardship. The Court opined that the petitioner was entitled to seek condonation of delay. By failing to appreciate these valid and sufficient grounds, the respondent had arrived at an erroneous conclusion. Therefore, adopting a justice-oriented approach, the Court set aside the impugned order and condoned the delay in filing the returns. The respondent was directed to accept the returns submitted by the petitioner for AY 2022-23, with liberty to verify the claims and proceed in accordance with law.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Lalitha Urs, is the wife of a deceased assessee. She filed income tax returns for Assessment Year 2022-23 after the prescribed due date, with a delay of 121 days. She filed an application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking condonation of this delay, citing bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances, and sufficient cause, including genuine hardship. The respondent, Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), rejected this application through an order dated 06.02.2025. The petitioner then filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka seeking to quash the respondent's order and to direct the respondent to accept her belatedly filed return of income.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the respondent erred in rejecting the petitioner's application for condonation of delay of 121 days in filing income tax returns for AY 2022-23 under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by adopting a hyper-technical approach. Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner contended that the delay was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances, and sufficient cause, constituting genuine hardship as contemplated in Circular No. 9/2015. She argued that the respondent failed to appreciate these grounds and adopted a hyper-technical approach. Revenue's Contentions: The respondent supported the impugned order and submitted that there was no merit in the petition and it 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 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42327 WP No. 9358 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 9358 OF 2025 (T-IT) BETWEEN: LALITHA URS W/O S.SHRIKANT RAJE URS AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, R/AT NO.434, 8TH CROSS, SAMMARGA, SIDDARTHA NAGAR, MYSORE- 570 011. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MOHAN B.K.,ADVOCATE) AND: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PCIT BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE, KORAMANGALA, BANGALURU 560 095. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M.THIRUMALESH, ADVOCATE)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD. 06.02.2025 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT IN ORDER NO. ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-25/1072974499(1) (ANNX-B). DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO DO THE NEEDFUL TO ENABLE THE PETITIONER TO FILE THE RETURN OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE WEBSITE.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42327 WP No. 9358 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned order at Annexure – B dated 06.02.2025 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) seeking condonation of delay of 121 days in filing the income tax returns in relation to the Assessment Year 2022-23 was rejected by the respondent.

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 2022-23, the petitioner who is the wife of the deceased Assessee filed returns of the petitioner after the prescribed period along with the application seeking condonation of delay interalia owing to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, the petitioner was not in a position to file the returns within a prescribed period

- 3 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42327 WP No. 9358 of 2025 and as such the delay deserves to be set aside. It was contended that delay in filing the returns was due to genuine hardship as contemplated in the Circular No.9/2015.

4.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would support the impugned order and submit 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 the condone the delay of 121 days which is sought to be explained without appreciating that due to the demise of the Assessee, the petitioner herein who is the wife of the Assessee filed the returns of the petitioner belatedly and on account of bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause constituting genuine hardship on the part of the petitioner to file the IT returns within a prescribed period, the petitioner was entitled to seek condonation of delay and failure to appreciate this,

- 4 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42327 WP No. 9358 of 2025 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 her 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. 7. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER

(i) The petition is hereby allowed.

(ii) The impugned order at Annexure – B dated 06.02.2025, is hereby set aside.

(iii) The application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay of 121 days in filing IT returns for the AY 2022-23, is hereby allowed. (iv) The respondent/respondents is/are directed to accept the

- 5 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42327 WP No. 9358 of 2025 returns submitted by the petitioner for the aforesaid Assessment Year 2022-23. (v) It is needless to state that upon receiving the IT returns, the respondent is at liberty to verify the claim of the petitioner and proceed further in accordance with law. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE BSV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 11

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 →