M/s. Discovery Global Ministry V. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions)

WP/28127/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Ms. Discovery Global Ministry, represented by its Managing Trustee Mr. Vuppula Ebenezer Benjamin, who filed a writ petition against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) and other related respondents. The petitioner sought to challenge the rejection of their application for condonation of delay in filing under the Income Tax Act for the assessment years 2017-18 and 2022-23. The rejection was based on a mechanical consideration of legal provisions without addressing the petitioner's medical reasons for the delay. The High Court, upon review, found that the impugned order did not adequately address the petitioner's circumstances and thus set aside the order, remanding the matter for re-evaluation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 752761 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 14-10-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: A RADHA KRISHNA; B MUKHERJEE
• Assessee Lawyers: SHAIK BASHA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Natural Justice; Rule of law; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 119(2)(b); 226

Judgement Text

"[3411] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY ,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 28127 OF 2024 Between: Mis. Discovery Global Ministry, Plot No.303, 3rd Floor, SBRs Towers, Hitech City, Madhapur, Hyderabad. Rep. by its Managing Trustee Mr.Vuppula Ebenezer Benjamin ...PET'*.NER AND 1. The Commissioner of lncome Tax (Exemptions), 2nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad - 500 004. 2, The Income Tax Officer, Office of the Commissioner of lncome Tax E Hyderabad 3. The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, Exemption Circle I Hydera-bad 4. The Union of lndia, Rep. by its Secretary Ministry of Finance 64 3'' floor Jeevan Deep Building sansad Marg New Delhi ...RES'.NDENT' Petition under Article 226 of the Constitutron of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ of [ Iandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Order or Direction declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in rejecting the Application for Condonation of Delay filed by the Petitioner in Form '108 under Section 119(2)(b) of the lncome Tax Act 1961, vide Orders, dated 08.08.2024 for the Assessment Years 2017 -18 and 2022-23 under the lncome Tax Act, 1961, without referring to any contentions of the Petitioner and much less not even granting an opportunity of being heard to the Petitioner, as arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the Act, bias and in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and Rule of Law and consequently set aside the orders of the 1st Respondent dated 08.08.2024 as null and void IA NO: 't oF 2024 Petition under Section '151 CPC praying that in the circumstancres stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition' the High Court may be pleased to Suspend Respond Dema nd the Operation of the Order, dated 08 08 2024 passed by the 1st ent in re.iecting the Application for Condonation of Delay ircluding the Notice of the 3'd Respondent, dated 05 06 2024 for the Assessment Years 2017-18 and 2022-23 under the lncome Tax Act 1961, pendin{l disposal of the above Writ Petition as otheMise' the Petitioner will be put to severe loss and hardshiP Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI' SHAIK JEELANI BASHA REP MS. SHAIK VAHEEDA SUSHMA Counsel for the Respondent Nos' 1to3: SRI RADHA KRISHNA A (sR sc FoR cBlT AND C) counser for the Respondent No'4: SRr B' HXS|S[i5ESF[uro*, _. - oV. Sor-tctroR GENERAL oF INDIA The Court made the following: ORDER r'i.3i''Xf I //a' THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE TIONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.28127 of 2o24 ORDER (per Hon'ble SP,J) Sri Shaik Jeelani Basha, learned counsel represents Ms. Shaik Vaheeda Sushma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A.Radha Krishna, learned Senjor Standing Counsel, appeared for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri B. Mukherjee, learned counsel representing Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, appeared for respondent No.4. 2. With the consent hnallv heard. 3. The challenge mounted in this petition frled under article 226 of the Constitution is to the impugned order dated 08.Oa.2024 (annexure-P1), whereby application of the petitioner for condonation of delay frled under Section 119 (2) (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has been rejected by respondent No. 1. Criticizing the said order, learned counsel for the petitioner, placed reliance on the application for condonation of delay dated 24.O4-2024 (annexure-P5) wherein the petitioner prayed for condonation of delay and in support thereof hled medical reports. It is argued that there is no iota of discussion on the said reason in the impugned order. Respondent No. I considered only the legai position and a 7 ll I I i i I I I i I i i I * without consiclering the factual matrix of the present case, rejected the application in a mechanical manner. 4. Sri A.lRadha Krishna, learned Senior Standing rlounsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3, supported the impugned order and submitted that the impugned order contains sufficient legal basis and does not require any interference. 5. No olher point is pressed by learned counsel for the parties. 6. A careful reading of the application filed b1' the petitioner for condonation of delay shows that in column 14, he mentioned that delay of 35 days is because of \" due to m'edical health issud' and in support thereof hled medical reports. A microscopic reading of the impugned ord.er shows that respondent No' 1 has; considered the judgments of the Supreme Court and other High Courts on the question of condonation of delay. What is mis:;ing is the consideration on the reasons assigned by the petitiontrr about the delay of 35 clays. While considering an application for :ondonation of deiay, the authority is required to apply its mind on the facts of a particular case to determine whether the delay is properly explained and rn hether it constitutes \" suffi.cient causd'. ln absence thereof, mere reproduction of judgments of the Courts and without considering the facts of a particular case is of no use. .1- F : :rtr 7. The reasons are held to be heartbeat of conclusions. In absence of reasons, conclusions cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. We find substance in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no iota of discussion and finding in the impugned order as to why the reasons given by the petitioner, supported by the medical reports, are not to be treated as trustworthy. Thus, the impugned order, in our opinion, cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. 8. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 08.08.2024, is set aside. The application for condonation of delay is revived and respondent No.1 shall rehear the petitioner and pass a fresh order in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 9. The Writ Petition is disposed of- No costs. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD'. K.SREERAMA MURfH ASsrsrANr REGJR^ Y R SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Commissioner of lncome Tax (Exemptions), 2nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad - 500 004. 2. The lncome Tax Offlcer, Office of the Commissioner of lncome Tax E Hyderabad 3. The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, Exemption Circle I Hyderabad 4. The Secretary, Union of lndia, Secretary l ilinistry of Finance 6A 3 floor Jeevan Deep Building Sansad t Iarg New Delhi 5. One CC to SRl. SHAIK VAHEEDA SUSHUIA, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to SRl. RADHA KRISHNA A (SR SC FOR CBIT AND C) IOPUCI 7. ONe CC to SRI- GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DY, SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA loPUCl 8. Two CD Copies BM GJP g / HIGH COURT DATED:1411012024 ORDER WP.No.28127 ot 2024 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS .t ..7 .1,:, t - lrt t: lr I ,i i'lt Z0Z4 f, .i, . , ,-2, @e' WV -==::_. "