SRI KOLA VENKAT RAMA NAIDU vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT

WP/24971/2024HC KarnatakaKAHC01052942202412 September 2024Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR5 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition. It held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had adopted a hyper-technical approach by refusing to condone the 80-day delay in filing the appeal. The Court found this approach contrary to well-settled principles governing condonation of delay and the recent Apex Court judgment in Mool Chandra Vs. Union of India, which emphasizes the cause shown for the delay over its length. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's submission that the delay was due to his father's ill-health and demise. Adopting a justice-oriented approach to enable the petitioner to present his case on merits, the Court set aside the impugned order, condoned the 80-day delay, and directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to dispose of the appeal on its merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Liberty was also granted to the petitioner to file discharge applications.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sri Kola Venkat Rama Naidu, filed his Income Tax returns for Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12. A survey was conducted on March 2, 2015, leading to an assessment order dated March 31, 2016, passed by the Assessing Officer. The petitioner intended to file an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 11 (R-3). However, due to the ill-health and subsequent demise of his father, the petitioner could not file the appeal within the prescribed period, resulting in a delay of 80 days. The petitioner sought condonation of this delay, but R-3 dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation by an order dated April 30, 2024. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in refusing to condone the delay of 80 days in filing the appeal, thereby dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation, contrary to established principles of condonation of delay and justice-oriented approach? (Question of law and fact, concerning the application of principles of natural justice and condonation of delay provisions). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the delay was attributable to the ill-health and demise of his father, which prevented him from filing the appeal within the stipulated time. He contended that the Commissioner adopted a hyper-technical approach, refusing to condone the delay despite a reasonable cause, and cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Mool Chandra Vs. Union of India to support the principle that the cause of delay, not its length, is paramount. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the respondents.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

NC: 2024:KHC:37525 WP No. 24971 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 24971 OF 2024 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

SRI KOLA VENKAT RAMA NAIDU S/O. CHINNABBA NAIDU KOLA, AGED 55 YEARS, R/AT. NO.13, RMV 2ND STAGE, GOWDA COLONY, 4TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN ROAD, DOLLARS COLONY, BANGALORE-560094. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.V.SESHACHALA SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. NAGHARISH G S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

ASSESSMENT UNIT FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001 REP. BY ASSESSING OFFICER

NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE NO.412-413, IST FLOOR, OPP. METRO PILLAR NO. 793 DWARKA MOR, NEW DELHI-110059. REP. BY ASSESSING OFFICER

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-11 80 FEET ROAD, BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-95. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.DILIP., ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by LEELAVATHI S R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

NC: 2024:KHC:37525 WP No. 24971 of 2024

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-3 ORDER DTD. 30.04.2024 ANNX-D BEARING APPEAL NO. CIT(A) BENGALURU-6/10113/2016-17 PASSED BY THE R-3 FOR A.Y.2011-12 AND DIRECT THE R-3 TO CONSIDER THE APPEAL ON MERITS AFTER ACCEPTING THE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE CASE, 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 1. In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs- “a. Issue a Writ of certiorari to quash the order passed by the third respondent order dated 30.04.2024 Annexure-D bearing Appeal No.CIT(A), Bengaluru – 6/10113/2016-17 passed by the third respondent for A.Y.2011-12 and direct the third respondent to consider the appeal on merits after accepting the additional documents in support of the case. b. 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. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record would indicate that pursuant to the petitioner filing Income Tax returns for the

- 3 -

NC: 2024:KHC:37525 WP No. 24971 of 2024

Assessment year 2011-12 and a survey was conducted on 02.03.2015 which culminated in an assessment order dated 31.03.2016 passed by the Assessing Officer. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that due to ill-health of his deceased father, the petitioner was not in a position to file the appeal before respondent No.3 – Commissioner within the prescribed period and there was a delay of 80 days in filing the appeal. The petitioner having sought for condonation of delay, respondent No.3 – Commissioner proceeded to pass the impugned order refusing to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. Aggrieved by which the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. 5. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that respondent No.3 has adopted a Hyper-Technical approach and refused to condone the delay of 80 days in filing the appeal which is not only contrary to the well settled principles governing the condonation of delay, but also the recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mool Chandra Vs. Union of India – Civil Appeal No.8435/2024 arising out of SLP. (Civil) No.2733/2024 dated 05.08.2024, wherein it is held that it is not the length of the delay, but the cause

- 4 -

NC: 2024:KHC:37525 WP No. 24971 of 2024

shown for the condonation of delay that is relevant for the purpose of condonation of delay. 6. In the instant case, the petitioner has specifically contended that due to ill-health and demise of his father, the petitioner could not file the appeal within the prescribed period and consequently, adopting the Justice oriented approach and in order to enable the appellant to putforth his contentions on merits, I deem it appropriate to set aside the order and condone the delay in filing the appeal and direct respondent No.3 to dispose of the appeal on merits in accordance with law. 7. In the result, the following : ORDER i. The petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 30.04.2024 vide Annexure-D is hereby set aside. iii. The delay of 80 days in filing the appeal before respondent No.3 is hereby condoned.

- 5 -

NC: 2024:KHC:37525 WP No. 24971 of 2024

iv. The respondent No.3 is directed to dispose of the appeal of the petitioner on merits in accordance with law after providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. v. Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to file discharge application etc., which shall be considered by respondent No.3 to proceed further in accordance with law.

Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

HNM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 19

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →