M/S CHROMACHEMIE LABORATORY PVT LTD V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

WP/20147/2024

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Chromachemie Laboratory Pvt. Ltd., which filed a writ petition against the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) ITA - 1 and the Assessing Authority, challenging the rejection of their application for condonation of delay in filing Form 10-IC. This form was necessary to claim benefits under Section 115BAA of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2020-21. The petitioner argued that the delay was due to bona fide reasons and unavoidable circumstances, which were not appreciated by the respondents. The court's decision to remit the matter back for reconsideration was based on the finding that the respondents had not properly addressed the petitioner's arguments in their initial decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 726287 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 17-09-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: E I SANMATHI
• Assessee Lawyers: SURYA L
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Condonation of delay; Form 10-IC; Income Tax; Writ of Certiorari
• Section: 119(2)(b); 115BAA

Judgement Text

" - 1 - NC: 2024:KHC:38549 WP No. 20147 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 20147 OF 2024 (T-IT) BETWEEN: M/S. CHROMACHEMIE LABORATORY PVT. LTD., NO.103, MODEL EXPORT BHAVAN, 488B 14TH CROSS, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BENGALURU - 560 058, NATURE OF BUSINESS: TRADING OF PHARMACEUTICAL REFERENCE STANDARDS, INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, REPRESENTED BY SRI. B.R. SURYANARAYANA RAO, MANAGING DIRECTOR, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, SON OF SRI. RAJA RAO, PAN NO.AAFCC0285K …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SURYA TEJAS L., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S. PARTHASARATHI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) ITA - 1, THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE NORTH BLOCK, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI, DELHI 110 001. Digitally signed by LEELAVATHI S R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:38549 WP No. 20147 of 2024 2. THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY, ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI, DELHI 110 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER U/S 119(2) OF THE ACT DATED. 28/05/2024 BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2020-21 (ANN-F) AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioners seek the following reliefs: \"a) issue a Writ of Certiorari or a direction in the nature of Writ of Certiorari quashing the order u/s.119(2)(b) of the Act dt.28.05.2024 by the First Respondent for the assessment year 2020-21 (ANNEXURE-`F',); b) issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing the Assessment Order dated 03.08.2022 in No.ITBA/AST/S/143(3)2022- 23/1044463974(1), AY: 2020-21, which is enclosed as ANNEXURE-G passed by Second Respondent with regard to - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:38549 WP No. 20147 of 2024 quantification of tax payable by the Petitioner without considering the provisions of Section 115BAA of the Act. c) issue a Writ of Mandamus or a direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the First Respondent to condone the delay in filing Form-10-IC and to entertain the claim as made u/s.115BAA of the Act and direct the Second Respondent to reduce the tax and refund the excess tax paid by the petitioner. d) Issue a writ of mandamus to direct Second Respondent to revise the tax originally determined by providing the concession under Section 115BAA of the Act after obtaining appropriate order from Respondent No.1 e) pass such other order, direction or writ as this Hon'ble Court deems fit, and f) direct the Respondents to award the costs of this Writ Petition.\" 2. Heard Shri Surya Tejas L., learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri E.I.Sanmathi, learned Counsel for the respondents. 3. A perusal of the material on record indicate that due date for filing income tax returns along with Form 10-IC seeking the benefit of Section 115BAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (\"I.T.Act\" for short) was supposed to by filed by the petitioner on or - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:38549 WP No. 20147 of 2024 before 15.02.2021 and petitioner submitted his income tax returns within the due date. However, the petitioner did not file the Form 10-IC which was only filed on 26.07.2021 after the delay of about five months. Under these circumstances, the petitioner filed an application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, which came to be rejected by the respondents vide impugned order dated 28.05.2024 (Annexure-F) as a result of which the impugned assessment order dated 03.08.2022(Annexure-G) has attained finality. 4. Aggrieved by impugned Assessment Order at Annexure-G dated 03.08.2022, petitioner has already filed an appeal which is pending adjudication before the before the Appellate Authority. 5. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that inability and omission on the part of the petitioner to file Form 10-IC within the prescribed period and due date was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and various contentions urged by the petitioner in the said application have not been appreciated by the respondents in the impugned order which deserves to be set aside. - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:38549 WP No. 20147 of 2024 6. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents would support the impugned order at Annexure-F dated 28.05.2024 and prayed for dismissal of the petition. 7. A perusal of the material on record including the impugned order would clearly indicate that in the application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) of the I.T Act, various/several contentions and reasons have been urged by the petitioner in support of his claim for condonation of delay and reliance is placed on various judgments. However, a perusal of the impugned order would indicate that various contentions urged by the petitioner have not been considered by first respondent and consequently, I am of the view that impugned order passed by first respondent deserves to be set aside and the matter remitted back to the first respondent for reconsideration of the application dated 09.03.2024(Annexure- E) submitted by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) of the I.T Act afresh in accordance with law. 8. In the result, I pass the following: - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:38549 WP No. 20147 of 2024 ORDER (I) Petition is allowed; (ii) The impugned order dated 28.05.2024 (Annexure-F) is hereby set aside; (iii) The matter is remitted back to the first respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. (iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit additional pleadings/documents which shall be considered by first respondent which shall proceed further after providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner in accordance with law. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE YN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 58 "