BASAVARAJ V KANAVI V. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME

WP/103539/2014

AI Insights

The case involves Basavaraj V. Kanavi, a small businessman, who filed writ petitions against the Commissioner of Income Taxes and other officials, challenging the rejection of his application for condonation of delay in filing income tax returns for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09. The petitioner argued that his inability to file the returns on time was due to ill-health and financial difficulties. The respondents contended that the petitioner did not provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay. The High Court found that the authorities did not properly consider the petitioner's circumstances or allow him a chance to clarify the information provided by the Assessing Officer, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and remanding the case for fresh consideration.

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 691637 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 03-01-2019
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: Y V RAVIRAJ
• Assessee Lawyers: GANGADHAR M
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Ill health; Income Tax Return; Non-speaking order
• Section: 119(2)(b)

Judgement Text

" : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. NARENDAR WRIT PETITION NOS. 103539/2014 & 107626/2014 (T-IT) BETWEEN: BASAVARAJ V. KANAVI S/O. VEERUPAKSHAPPA AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS NO. 75, RAJANAGAR, HUBLI 580 032 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. GANGADHAR J. M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXES OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING NAVNAGAR, HUBLI 580 025 2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-3 OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL REVENUE BUIDLING NAVNAGAR, HUBLI 580 025 3. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(2) OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING NAVNAGAR, HUBLI 580 025 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. Y V RAVIRAJ, ADVOCATE) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDERS BEARING NO. F.NO 119(2)(B) / CIT-HBL/2013- 14/1410 AND 1411 DATED 22/11/2013 (ANNEXURES-A AND B) ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND ETC. : 2 : THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Petitioner is before this Court impugning the order dated 22.11.2013, passed by the 1st respondent, rejecting the petitioner’s application for condonation of delay preferred under Section 119(2) (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a small business man carrying on the business of transporting the harvested sugar cane to the sugar factories. That the petitioner had been filing his income tax on regular basis and that, on account of ill-health and also on account of failure on the part of his customers to remit the accounts due to him, he was unable to file the returns for the assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09 and that on the advice of his : 3 : consultant, he has filed an application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act for consideration of the belated tax return for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09. The case of the petitioner is that, he could not file the returns in time on account of ill-health. That is the only ground that is pleaded and the premise on which the application is based. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents would contend that a duty was cast on the petitioner to demonstrate genuine hardship and he ought to have set out a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the returns. 5. Having heard the learned counsel and after perusing the reasoning assigned in the impugned order, this Court is of the opinion that the Authority ought to have accepted the reasons set out by the petitioner. 6. The case of the petitioner that was canvassed before the Authority was that, he was taking treatment for : 4 : chronic disease between August 2007 and July 2009. This plea appears to have been put to the Assessing Officer by the petitioner and the Assessing Officer is said to have reported that the petitioner was taking treatment as an out patient and hence the respondent-Authority deemed it fit to presume that the explanation put forth is not a satisfactory explanation. In the opinion of this Court, the Authority ought to have put the information to the applicant/petitioner herein and ought to have afforded an opportunity to the petitioner to explain the information that was made available to the Authority by the Assessing Officer. The very fact that the Assessing Officer had reported the fact of the petitioner taking treatment makes out a prima facie case for the petitioner. That being the case, if the Authority desires to adversely infer based on the information furnished by the Assessing Officer, then he ought to have put it to the petitioner before relying upon the said information to infer adversely. : 5 : 7. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the 1st respondent-Authority ought to have disclosed and discussed the gist of the information that had been obtained by the Assessing Officer and upon which reliance has been placed. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the order impugned is a non-speaking order. 8. Hence the impugned order dated 22.11.2013 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the 1st respondent for reconsideration afresh. The petitioner shall appear before the 1st respondent-Authority on 28.01.2019. The 1st respondent shall hear the petitioner and dispose of the application within a further period of eight weeks thereafter. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. Sd/- JUDGE gab "