SHRI GAJANAN URBAN CO OP CREDIT SOCETY LIMITED vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

PDF · subscribers
WP/9864/2024HC KarnatakaKAHC01018255202403 April 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 14.12.2023. The Court held that the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax had adopted a hyper-technical approach and failed to appreciate the genuine hardship faced by the petitioner. The inability of the petitioner's auditor to attend to professional duties due to his wife's serious medical condition from February to December 2019 was considered a valid and sufficient ground for condoning the delay. The Court found that these circumstances constituted genuine hardship as per Circular 13/2023. Consequently, the Court allowed the petitioner's application for condonation of the 162-day delay in filing Income Tax Returns for Assessment Year 2019-20 and directed the respondents to accept the returns. The respondents were also granted liberty to verify the petitioner's claims and proceed further in accordance with law. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shri Gajanan Urban Co-op Credit Society Limited, filed a writ petition seeking to quash an order dated 14.12.2023 passed by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCIT), Bengaluru. This order rejected the petitioner's application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for condonation of a 162-day delay in filing its Income Tax Returns for Assessment Year 2019-20. The petitioner contended that the delay was due to their auditor's inability to attend to professional duties because his wife was undergoing treatment for Hodgkin's Lymphoma and a brain tumor from February to December 2019, constituting genuine hardship.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax erred in rejecting the petitioner's application for condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2019-20, considering the circumstances presented by the petitioner? Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the delay in filing Income Tax Returns was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances, and sufficient cause, specifically the illness of the auditor's wife, which constituted genuine hardship as contemplated in Circular 13/2023 dated 26.07.2023. They contended that the respondent adopted a hyper-technical approach and failed to appreciate the genuine hardship, leading to an erroneous rejection of their application. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue supported the impugned order and submitted that the petition lacked 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:14429 WP No. 9864 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.9864 OF 2024 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

SHRI GAJANAN URBAN CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED, A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ACT, 1959 REGISTERED ADDRESS AT WALVEKAR GALLI, M.G. MARKET, HUBBALLI – 580 020. REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICER, SMT. LAXMIBAI PATIL, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, WIFE OF SRI BAPUGOUDA …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHREEHARI KUTSA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

CCIT, BENGALURU-1, AN AUTHORITY UNDER THE

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001.

2.

INCOME TAX OFFICER

WARD-2(1), HUBBALLI THE JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 C R BUILDING, NAVANAGAR, HUBBALI – 580 025. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ARAVIND V.CHAVAN, ADVOCATE)

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

- 2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:14429 WP No. 9864 of 2024

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 119(2)(b) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DATED 14.12.2023 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2019-20 WHICH BEARS THE DIN VIZ., ITBA/COM/F/17/2023-24/1058769773(1) WHICH IS ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-F 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– F dated 14.12.2023 passed by the respondent No.1, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) seeking condonation of delay of 162 days in filing the income tax returns in relation to the Assessment Year 2019-20 was rejected by the 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 2019-20, the petitioner filed returns after the prescribed period along with the application seeking condonation of delay of 162 days in filing the returns interalia contending that the Auditor of the petitioner was not able

- 3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:14429 WP No. 9864 of 2024

to attend his professional duties since his wife was being diagnosed and receiving treatment for Hodkins Lymphoma and enlargement of brain in the Right Temporal Region from Feb 2019 to December 2019 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 13/2023 dated 26.07.2023 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 a 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 due to the Auditor of the petitioner not being

- 4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:14429 WP No. 9864 of 2024

able to attend his professional duties since his wife was being diagnosed and receiving treatment for Hodkins Lymphoma and enlargement of brain in the Right Temporal Region from February 2019 to December 2019. The respondents failed to appreciate that the petitioner could not file its 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 26.07.2023 and failure to appreciate this has resulted in erroneous conclusion warranting interference by this Court in the present petition.

6.

Under these circumstances, by adopting a 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:14429 WP No. 9864 of 2024

(ii) The impugned order at Annexure – F dated 14.12.2023 is hereby set-aside; (iii) The application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay of 162 days in filing Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Year 2019-20, is hereby allowed; (iv) The respondents are directed to accept the returns submitted by the petitioner for the aforesaid Assessment Year 2019-20; (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

SV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

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 →