PRL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. THOMBATHU MILK PRODUCERS
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court directed the revenue to consider the application filed under Section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay in an expeditious manner, within three months from the receipt of the judgment, and in accordance with the law.
What were the facts?
The revenue appealed against a High Court order that had set aside an order passed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, leading to the condonation of delay in filing returns. The revenue argued that the application under Section 119(2)(b) had not yet been considered.
What were the issues?
Whether the application for condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) was properly considered by the revenue, and if not, what directions should be issued for its disposal.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA AND THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA
WRIT APPEAL NO.4014 OF 2019 (T-IT)
BETWEEN:
PRL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AAYAKAR BHAVAN C.R.BUILDING N.G.ROAD, ATTAVARA MANGALURU-565 001.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTRE BENGALURU-560 500.
INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD-2 AAYAKAR BHAVAN ADI-UDUPI MALPE ROAD UDUPI-576 103. ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI: E.I.SANMATHI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
M/S THOMBATHU MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY THOMBATHU, HENGAVALLI VILLAGE KUNDAPURA TALUK
UDUPI DISTRICT-576 212. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI.RAJU POOJARY. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI: MAHESH R.UPPIN, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.9.2019 IN WRIT PETITION NO.28873/2019 (T-IT) PASSED BY THE HON’BLE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T The revenue has preferred this intra Court appeal assailing the order dated 19.09.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.28873 of 2019. The said writ petition was heard along with other writ petitions and common order was passed setting aside the order passed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for the sake of brevity). In those cases, where there was rejection of the application filed under the said Section, consequently the delay in filing the returns was not condoned.
Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that in this case, the application filed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act has not yet been taken up for consideration, but inadvertently there is a remand in the instant matter also just as in the other cases. He submitted that instead, a direction could be issued to consider the said application seeking condonation of delay in accordance with law. He further submitted that till date, the return filed has been considered only for the limited purpose of Section 143(1) of the Act and no order has been made under Section 143(3) of the Act as the return has not been taken up for being processed under Section 143(3) of the Act.
Learned Counsel for the respondent does not oppose the submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellants. Respondent’s counsel also submitted that a direction may be issued to consider the application filed by the respondent under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act in an
expeditious manner and in accordance with law, if not already disposed.
In the circumstances, this appeal is disposed by directing respondent No.1 in the writ petition/appellant No.1 herein to consider the application filed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act in an expeditious manner and at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment and in accordance with law.
Ordered accordingly.
No costs. In view of the disposal of appeal, pending applications, if any, stand disposed.
Sd/- JUDGE
Sd/- JUDGE *bgn/-
More judgments on Section 119(2)(b)
- Jijamata Mahila Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari… vs ITO Ward -1, BhandraITA 102/NAG/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Pushpa Chandra Raj Singhvi Charitable… vs CIT(Exemption), Income Tax Appellate TribunaITA 8820/MUM/2026[2026-27]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2026-27
- Pratik Deepak Agarwal, Lonavla vs Assessing Officer, Ward 9(3), Akurdi, PuneITA 2227/PUN/2026[2025-2026]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2025-2026
- Pushpa Bitan Friendship Society, Kolkata vs I.T.O., Ward - 1(4), Exemption, KolkataITA 2607/KOL/2026[2018-2019]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2018-2019
- Tiong Woon Project & Contracting Pte Ltd… vs ACIT, Intl. Taxn. Circle-2(2), ChennaiITA 1883/CHNY/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S. Devkinandan Traders vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Dixit Medical Agencies vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026