M/S ANANTHARAJA CHARITABLE TRUST vs. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES

PDF · subscribers
WP/32790/2024HC KarnatakaKAHC01066729202416 July 2025Bench: SURAJ GOVINDARAJ4 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition. It held that the impugned order dated June 6, 2024, passed by the respondent under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was set aside. The court found that the medical certificate submitted by the petitioner, who is 75 years old, listed conditions such as hypertension, ischemic heart disease, diabetes mellitus, hypothyroidism, and Parkinson's. While these conditions were not explicitly stated as preventing the filing of returns, the court opined that the revenue should be more equitable and exercise its jurisdiction under Section 119(2)(b) more liberally, especially when the assessee is approaching the authority to pay tax. The court condoned the delay in filing the application and remitted the matter back to the respondent to consider the returns and documents filed by the petitioner in accordance with law. The principle is that in cases involving elderly assessees seeking to comply with tax obligations, a more liberal and equitable approach should be adopted by the revenue authorities when exercising their powers under Section 119(2)(b).

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Anantharaja Charitable Trust Vidyaniketan Public School, represented by its Managing Trustee, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka. The petition challenged an order dated June 6, 2024, passed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner's application for condonation of delay in filing returns, filed under Section 119(2)(b), was dismissed by the respondent. The reason for dismissal was that the medical certificate submitted did not specifically state that the petitioner's afflictions prevented them from filing returns within the stipulated time. The petitioner is 75 years old.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned order dated 06.06.2024 passed by the respondent under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, quashing the petitioner's application for condonation of delay, is sustainable in law? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that their application under Section 119(2)(b) was dismissed on the ground that the medical certificate did not explicitly state that their medical conditions prevented them from filing returns on time. The petitioner, being 75 years old, sought to file returns and documents, which would not adversely affect the revenue but would ensure voluntary tax payment. The petitioner contended that the revenue should exercise its jurisdiction under Section 119(2)(b) more liberally in such cases. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue in response to the writ petition.

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:26484 WP No. 32790 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

WRIT PETITION NO.32790 OF 2024 (T-IT)

BETWEEN:

M/S. ANANTHARAJA CHARITABLE TRUST VIDYANIKETAN PUBLIC SCHOOL KAUP, UDUPI DISTRICT KARNATAKA-574106 REP. BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE SRI K.P. ACHARYA S/O LATE SRI ANANTHA ACHARYA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS. …PETITIONER

(BY SRI CHANDRASEKHAR V., ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, THROUGH THE CHAIRPERSON, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001. …RESPONDENT

(BY SRI ARAVIND V. CHAVAN, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN ORDER F.NO.197/42/2023-ITA-1 DATED 06.06.2024 PASSED U/S 119(2)(b) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND HEREIN MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26484 WP No. 32790 of 2024

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

ORAL ORDER

1.

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs; a. Issue a writ of Certiorari or direction in the nature of a writ of certiorari quashing the Impugned Order in order F.No.197/42/2023-ITA-1 dated 06.06.2024 passed u/s 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and herein marked as Annexure-A.

b. And pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity.”

2.

The grievance of the petitioner is that the application filed by the petitioner under Section 192(b) of the Income Tax Act 1961 has been dismissed by the respondent on the ground that the medical certificate which had been produced along with the said application did not specifically disclose that due to the affliction mentioned in the medical certificate, the petitioner was unable to file his returns within the timeframe. A copy of the medical certificate has been placed on record before this Court.

- 3 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26484 WP No. 32790 of 2024

3.

The afflictions indicated in the said report only indicate normal afflictions like hypertension, ischemic heart disease, diabetes mellitus, hypothyroidism and Parkinson, there is nothing which is indicated in the said medical certificate that those afflictions were such that the petitioner was prevented from carrying out the necessary activities. 4. Considering that the petitioner is 75 years and that by filing an application under Section 192(b), what the petitioner intends to achieve is only to place the returns and documents on record which would not in any manner adversely affect the interest in revenue, infact the revenue would receive the tax due voluntarily paid by the petitioner. 5. The revenue would have to consider the documents which have been placed on record in accordance with law and determine the tax liability of the petitioner. I am of the considered opinion that, these kind of matters the revenue is required to be more equitable

- 4 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26484 WP No. 32790 of 2024

and exercise the jurisdiction under Section 192(b) more liberally by condoning the delay where it can, so that the assessment could be completed in a proper manner in accordance with law, more so when the assessee has approached the authority to pay the tax. As such, I pass the following; ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. A certiorari is issued, the impugned order bearing F.No.197/42/2023-ITA-1 dated 06.06.2024 at Annexure-A is set aside. iii. The application under Section 192(b) of the Income Tax Act 1961 is allowed delay is condoned.

The matter is remitted to respondent to consider the returns and documents filed by the petitioner in accordance with law. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

SR/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41

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 →