Dinabandhu Foundation for Educational Research and Socio-Economic Development, Bhubaneswar V. Union of India and others

WP(C)/11036/2024

AI Insights

The case involves the Dinabandhu Foundation for Educational Research and Socio-Economic Development, Bhubaneswar, as the petitioner, who sought judicial intervention after their application for condonation of delay in filing Form-10 for the Assessment Year 2016-17 was rejected by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Hyderabad. The petitioner argued that the rejection was without proper consideration of the reasons for the delay, which were digitally submitted. The court found that the impugned order lacked reasoning and did not adhere to the principles of natural justice, leading to its decision to set aside the rejection and remand the matter for reconsideration.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 811278 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 03-05-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: W.P.(C) No.22474 of 2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Applicant
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: S C MOHANTY
• Assessee Lawyers: R P KAR; A MOHANTY
• Keywords: Assessment Year 2016-17; Condonation of delay; Form 10; Income Tax
• Section: 119(2)(b)

Judgement Text

" Page 1 of 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.11036 of 2024 Dinabandhu Foundation for Educational Research and Socio- Economic Development, Bhubaneswar ….. Petitioner Mr. R.P. Kar, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. A. Mohanty, Advocate Vs. Union of India and others ….. Opposite Parties Mr. S.C. Mohanty, Sr. Standing Counsel, Income Tax Department CORAM: DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI MR. JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY ORDER 03.05.2024 Order No. 01. This matter is taken up by hybrid mode. 2. Mr. R.P. Kar, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. A. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner-assessee submits that the present writ petition may be disposed of in terms of the order dated 24.07.2023 passed in the similar matter i.e., W.P.(C) No.22474 of 2023. 3. Mr. R.P. Kar, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. A. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner further submits that the Petitioner filed application for condonation of delay for late filing of Form-10 pertaining to the Assessment Year 2016-17. The application was rejected by the impugned order dated 11.12.2023. He prays to set aside the impugned order and direct the Opposite Parties-Revenue to accept the Form-10. 4. Mr. S.C. Mohanty, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Page 2 of 3 Opposite Parties-Income Tax justifies the impugned order. 5. Perused the impugned order. On query from this Court, Mr. R.P. Kar, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. A. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner demonstrate that under cover of letter dated 23.11.2023 under Annexure-20, certain requisitions were made for furnishing information. The Petitioner by letter dated 01.12.2023 under Annexure-21 furnished the information. The requisition and compliance were both digitally done. He then draws attention to impugned order to submit that there is no dispute regarding information received by opposite parties- Revenue. 6. For ready reference, first paragraph of the impugned order is reproduced hereunder:- “With reference to the assessee’s application for condonation of delay in filing Form 10 for the A.Y. 2016-17, cited under reference 1 above, it is to state that the assessee has filed Form 10 belatedly. The assessee has been requested to furnish certain information vide above cited reference 2, justifying its application for condonation of delay. However, the assessee has not submitted sufficient reason which prevented the assessee from filing the same, within the due date.” 7. In the requisition for information under Annexure-20, various information were sought for which also included query on reason for delay in filing Form-10 for Assessment Year 2016-17 (F.Y. 2015- 16). 8. Perusal of Annexure-21 dated 01.12.2023, it appears that the Managing Trustee of the Petitioner Trust has furnished explanation citing reason for the delay in uploading the Form-10 and prayed for condonation. Though, the explanation is stated to have been Page 3 of 3 furnished to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Income Tax Department, Hyderabad, the same has not been considered in its proper perspective by assigning reason, which is one of the essential facets of principles of natural justice. However, vide order dated 11.12.2023 passed by the CIT (Exemption), Hyderabad, the application of the Petitioner-Assessee for condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act in filing Form-10 for the Assessment Year 2016-17 stood rejected. 9. In the circumstances, the order dated 11.12.2023 under Annexure-22, being without reason as is apparent from the record, stands set aside and it is directed that the application for condonation of delay is restored for reconsideration on jurisdiction as well as merits by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Hyderabad. Needless to say that the said authority before taking decision may afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. Subhasmita (DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE (G. SATAPATHY) JUDGE Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASMITA DAS Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 06-May-2024 17:39:01 Signature Not Verified "