Ashok Babu S/o Babu Rao V. The Prl. Commissioner of Income Tax Panaji and The Income Tax Officer Ward 1 (1)

WP/28148/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Ashok Babu, the petitioner, who filed a writ petition against the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji, and the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Mangalore, challenging the rejection of his applications for condonation of delay in filing income tax returns for the assessment years 2021-22 and 2022-23. The petitioner argued that the delay was due to genuine hardships and technical problems, which constituted sufficient cause under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court, considering the petitioner's request for an opportunity to submit additional documents, decided to set aside the previous orders and remit the matter back for fresh consideration.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 797708 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 20-03-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: M THIRUMALESH
• Assessee Lawyers: VANAJA R
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Genuine hardship; Income Tax Returns; Technical Problems
• Section: 119(2)(b)

Judgement Text

" - 1 - NC: 2024:KHC:11592 WP No. 28148 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 28148 OF 2023 (T-IT) BETWEEN: ASHOK BABU S/O BABU RAO AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS D NO 3-W-7-61, X-1 1ST FLOOR, KADRI HILLS, MANGALORE – 575 004. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. VANAJA M R.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE PRL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PANAJI AAYAKAR BHAVAN, PLOT NO EDC COMPLEX, PATTO PLAZA PANAJI GOA – 403 001. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 (1) AAYAKAR SAMPARK KANDRA MANGALORE – 575 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.M. THIRUMALESH.,ADVOCATE) THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDERS OF THE R1 DATED 18.5.23 IN FILE NO. 19/119(2)(B)/PRI.CIT.PNJ/2023-24 AND DATED 7.9.23 IN FILE NO. 1/119(2)(B)/PRI.CIT-PNJ/2023-24 PASSED U/S 119(2)(B) OF THE ACT FOR THE ASST YEARS 2021-22 AND 2022-23 (ANNEXURE-D AND D1) OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE R1 TO RECONSIDER THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITION IN FILE NO. 19/119(2)(B)/PRI.CIT-PNJ/2023-24 IN FILE NO. 1/119(2)(B)/PRI.CIT-PNJ/2023-24 PASSED BY U/S 119(2)(B) OF THE ACT FOR THE ASST YEARS 2021-22 AND 2022-23 (ANNEXURE-D AN D1. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: Digitally signed by VANDANA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:11592 WP No. 28148 of 2023 ORDER In this petition, petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned orders dated 18.05.2023 and 07.09.2023 whereby the applications filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the I.T.Act’), for the assessment years 2021-22 and 2022-23 vide Annexures-C and C1 seeking condonation of delay in filing the Income Tax returns was rejected by the respondents. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents – revenue and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner – assessee filed the instant applications under Section 119(2)(b) of the I.T.Act interalia contending that due to genuine hardship faced by the petitioner i.e., due to technical problems, it would not be possible for the petitioner to upload the Income Tax Returns within the prescribed period. It was submitted that the inability and omission on the part of the petitioner to upload and file the I.T. returns within the prescribed period was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:11592 WP No. 28148 of 2023 amounting to genuine hardship and as such, the respondents committed an error in rejecting the applications filed by the petitioner, who is before this Court by way of the present petition. It is also submitted that if one more opportunity is granted by setting aside the impugned orders, the petitioner would furnish additional documents in support of his claim and respondents may be directed to reconsider the applications filed under Section 119(2)(b) of the I.T. Act in accordance with law. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents – revenue submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be rejected. 5. Though the petitioner has put forth several contentions as regards the application filed under Section 119(2)(b) of the I.T.Act, in view of the specific assertion on the part of the petitioner that if one more opportunity is provided to the petitioner to file additional documents, pleadings etc., in support of the said applications, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned orders at Annexures-D and D1 and remit the matter back to the respondents for reconsideration afresh of the applications filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) of the I.T.Act in - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:11592 WP No. 28148 of 2023 accordance with law after providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and hearing him. 6. In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER (i) Petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned orders at Annexures-D and D1 dated 18.05.2023 and 07.09.2023 passed by the 1st respondent are hereby set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted back to the 1st respondent for reconsideration afresh of the applications filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) of the I.T.Act in accordance with law after providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and hearing him. (iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to file additional pleadings, documents etc., which shall be considered by the 1st respondent, who shall proceed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. SD/- JUDGE Srl. "