M/S. CENTURY JOINT DEVELOPMENTS PVT.LTD., vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES

PDF · subscribers
WP/10948/2024HC KarnatakaKAHC01021551202423 April 2024Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR5 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the petition. It held that the order passed by the first respondent refusing to condone the extremely short delay of 2 hours, 38 minutes, and 26 seconds was a hyper-technical approach and contrary to the material on record. The Court found that the petitioner's contention of genuine hardship, as contemplated under Circular No. 9/2015 and Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not properly appreciated. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned order dated 05.03.2024 and the intimation dated 19.08.2020. The delay in filing the Income Tax Returns for Assessment Year 2019-20 was condoned. The respondents were directed to process the petitioner's income tax returns and proceed in accordance with the law. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Century Joint Developments Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging an order dated 05.03.2024 passed by the first respondent (Central Board of Direct Taxes) and an intimation dated 19.08.2020 passed by the fifth respondent (Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC). The petitioner sought to quash the order refusing to condone a delay of 2 hours, 38 minutes, and 28 seconds in filing their Income Tax Return for Assessment Year 2019-20. Consequently, they sought permission to carry forward losses. The petitioner argued that the delay was minimal and due to genuine hardship, and the refusal to condone it was a hyper-technical approach. The revenue contended that the petition lacked merit.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order dated 05.03.2024 passed by the first respondent, refusing to condone the delay of 2 hours, 38 minutes, and 28 seconds in filing the Income Tax Return for Assessment Year 2019-20, is arbitrary and deserves to be quashed, considering the provisions of Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and Circular No. 9/2015 dated 09.06.2015. (Question of law and fact) Assessee's Contentions: - The delay in filing the return was extremely short (2 hours, 38 minutes, and 28 seconds). - The refusal to condone this minor delay was a hyper-technical approach. - The petitioner faced genuine hardship, which should have been considered under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the CBDT's Circular No. 9/2015. - The subsequent intimation dated 19.08.2020, which followed the refusal to condone the delay, also deserves to be quashed. Revenue's Contentions: - The petition lacks merit and is 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: 2024:KHC:16263 WP No. 10948 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 10948 OF 2024 (T-IT)

BETWEEN:

M/s. CENTURY JOINT DEVELOPMENTS PVT. LTD., PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY EARLIER M/s. GREENORCHARDS FARM HOUSES PARTNERSHIP FIRM, NO.10/1, LAKSHMINARAYANA COMPLEX, PALACE ROAD, VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 052, REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI ASHWIN PAI.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. NAGHARISH G S., ADVOCATE) AND:

1.

CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE REP BY ADDITIONAL CIT (OSD) (OT AND WT), JEEVAN VIHAR BUILDING SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI-100 001.

2.

PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER, KARNATAKA AND GOA, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, INFANTRY ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

3.

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, 6TH FLOOR, 80 FT ROAD, BMTC BUILDING, KORMANGALA, BANGALORE-560 095.

Digitally signed by VANDANA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

NC: 2024:KHC:16263 WP No. 10948 of 2024

4.

ASSESSING OFFICER ACIT CIRCLE-3(1)(2), 6TH FLOOR, 80 FT ROAD, BMTC BUILDING, KORMANGALA BANGLAORE-560 095.

5.

ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTER 48/1, 48/2, PRESTIGE ALPHA, BERATENA AGRAHARA, ELECTRIC CITY(POST) HOSUR ROAD, BANGALORE-560 500.

…RESPONDENTSS

(BY SRI. M.DILIP, ADVOCATE)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 05/03/2024 PASSED BY FIRST RESPONDENTS F NO. 312/8/2020-OT PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-E AND CONSEQUENTLY CONDONED THE DELAY IN FILING THE RETURN OF 2 HOURS 38 MINUTES AND 28 SECONDS AND QUASH THE INTIMATION DATED 19/08/2020 PASSED BY FIFTH RESPONDENTS BEARING NO. CPC/1920/A6/2003013599 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-B AND CONSEQUENTLY PERMIT CARRY FORWARD OF LOSS AND ETC.,

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

- 3 -

NC: 2024:KHC:16263 WP No. 10948 of 2024

ORDER

In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

“a. Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated:- 05.03.2024 passed by first respondents F.NO.312/84/2020-OT produced as Annexure-E and consequently condoned the delay in filing the return of 2 hours 38 Minutes and 28 seconds b. Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the intimation dated 19.08.2020 passed by fifth respondents bearing no. CPC/1920/A6/2003013599 Produced as Annexure- B and consequently permit carry forward of loss. c. Issue such other Writ or direction as this Hon’ble Court deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the present case.” 2. In addition to reiterating the contentions urged in the present petition, learned Senior Counsel invited my attention to the impugned order dated 05.03.2024 passed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in order to contend that the respondents committed gravious/serious error in refusing to condone the extremely small/short delay of 2 Hours 38 Minutes and 26 Seconds in filing the Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Year 2019-20. It is submitted that having come to the conclusion that the petitioner was not entitled for condonation of

- 4 -

NC: 2024:KHC:16263 WP No. 10948 of 2024

delay, the first respondent further erred in issuing the impugned intimation, which also deserves to be quashed. 3. Per contra, learned AGA submits that there is no merits in the present petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

4.

As rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order passed by the first respondent refusing to consider the extremely short/small delay of 2 Hours 38 Minutes and 26 Seconds by adopting a hyper technical approach is clearly contrary to the material on record without appreciating the specific contention of the petitioner that he could not file the Income Tax Returns on account of genuine hardship as contemplated in the Circular dated 09.06.2015 bearing No.9/2015 and also the provisions of Section 119 (2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is also relevant to state that having come to the conclusion that the petitioner was not entitled for condonation of delay, the first respondent did not have jurisdiction or authority of law to issue impugned intimation at Annexure-B, which consequently deserves to be quashed and the delay in filing the returns deserves to be condoned and necessary directions to be issued to the respondents.

- 5 -

NC: 2024:KHC:16263 WP No. 10948 of 2024

5.

In the result, I pass the following ORDER (i) Petition is hereby allowed; (ii) Impugned intimation dated 19.08.2020 and impugned order dated 05.03.2024 issued/passed by the first respondent are hereby quashed; (iii) The delay in filing the Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Year 2019-2020 stands condoned; and (iv) Respondents is directed to process the income tax returns submitted by the petitioner and proceed further in accordance with law .

Sd/- JUDGE

AV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51

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 →