MR. SARATH MADAYIL vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP/11531/2024HC KarnatakaKAHC01023456202425 April 2024Author: 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 February 15, 2024. The Court condoned the delay in filing the income tax returns for the Assessment Year 2022-23. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's consistent and prompt filing of returns and timely tax payments in the past, indicating diligence. The Court found that the respondent No.1 had adopted a hyper-technical approach in rejecting the petitioner's explanation. The operative direction was for the respondents to accept the petitioner's income tax returns and proceed further in accordance with law. The principle established is that genuine hardship, coupled with a consistent record of compliance, should be considered favorably when seeking condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b), and a hyper-technical approach by the authorities is not appropriate.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mr. Sarath Madayil, a Canadian citizen also residing in Hyderabad, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated February 15, 2024, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (International Taxation), Bengaluru. This order rejected the petitioner's application filed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking condonation of delay in filing his income tax returns for the Assessment Year 2022-23. The petitioner contended that the delay was due to bonafide reasons beyond his control, including inadvertence, lack of professional guidance, and logistical/technical difficulties, constituting genuine hardship. The respondents are various income tax authorities and the Central Board of Direct Taxes.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in filing the income tax return for Assessment Year 2022-23 by the petitioner, Mr. Sarath Madayil, ought to be condoned under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, considering the reasons provided. Assessee's contentions: The petitioner argued that he could not file his income tax returns within the due date due to bonafide reasons beyond his control, such as inadvertence, lack of professional guidance, and logistical and technical difficulties. These circumstances, he contended, constituted genuine hardship as per the Circular dated 09.06.2015, and therefore, the delay should be condoned and the returns accepted. Revenue's contentions: The judgment does not record specific contentions made by the revenue before the High Court. However, it notes that the impugned order passed by Respondent No.1 rejected the application, implying the revenue did not accept the petitioner's explanation for the delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 119(2)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 11531 OF 2024 (T-IT)

BETWEEN:

MR. SARATH MADAYIL, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, PRESENTLY A CITIZEN OF CANADA R/AT 5214 THORNBURN DR. BURLINGTON, ONTARIO CANADA L7L6R4. AND ALSO AT 7-4-256/1, NAVAJEEVAN NAGAR, TIRUMALAGIRI, HYDERABAD - 500 011. REP. HEREIN BY HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, MR. GOVINDARAJU S/O LATE MR. VENKATESHWAR AGED 67 YEARS, NO. 7811, MOSQUE ROAD CROSS FRAZER TOWN, BANGALORE - 560 005. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. BHAVANA B., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SANDEEP HUILGOL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), BENGALURU BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE - 560 095.

2.

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 1(2),

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

BENGALURU, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD 6TH BLOCK, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE - 560 095.

3.

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-3, BENGALURU, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE - 560 095.

4.

CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI -110 002. REP. HEREIN BY ITS CHAIRPERSON.

5.

THE CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTRE INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, BENGALURU - 560 500. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SUSHAL TIWARI, ADVOCATE)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15/02/2024 BEARING DIN AND ORDER NO. ITBA/COM/F/17/2023-24/1060999985(1) PASSED BY THE R1 UNDER SECTION 119(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2022-23 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.

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

ORDER

In this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned order at Annexure-A dated 15.02.2024, whereby respondent No.1 rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, refusing to condone the delay in filing income tax returns for the Assessment Year 2022-23.

2.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the writ petition papers.

3.

A perusal of the material on record would indicate that before respondent No.1 as well as before this Court, it is the specific contention of the petitioner that he could not file his income tax returns within a due date due to bonafide reasons, which were beyond his control and due to inadvertence, lack of professional guidance, logistical and technical difficulties which constituted genuine hardship within the meaning of Circular dated 09.06.2015. It is further contended that delay in filing income tax returns may be condoned and same may be accepted by the respondents.

4.

A perusal of the impugned order would indicate that respondent No.1 has not accepted the explanation offered by the petitioner and adopted hyper technical approach in refusing to condone the delay.

5.

The material on record, would indicate that the petitioner has been filing his returns always regularly and promptly and has been diligent in paying taxes and has never committed any default in paying taxes or filing the income tax returns earlier. Therefore, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order at Annexure-A and condone the delay in filing the income tax returns and issue certain directions in this regard. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) Petition is hereby allowed; (ii) Impugned order at Annexure-A dated 15.02.2024 is hereby set aside; application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is hereby allowed and delay in filing income tax returns by the petitioner for the Assessment Year 2022-23 is hereby condoned.

(iii) The respondents are directed to accept the income tax returns of the petitioner and proceed further in accordance with law.

Sd/- JUDGE

SMJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6

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 →