INDIAN ORPHAN MISSION (IOM), BHAWANIPATNA V. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, HYDERABAD

WP(C)/39878/2023

AI Insights

The case involves the Indian Orphan Mission (IOM), the petitioner, who filed a writ petition against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) and another party, challenging the rejection of their application for condonation of delay in filing Form-10B for the Assessment Year 2021-22. The petitioner argued that the rejection was unjustified as they had complied with all requisitions for information. The court examined the submissions and found that the impugned order lacked sufficient reasoning for the rejection, leading to the decision to set aside the order and restore the application for further consideration.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 747396 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 09-01-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: W.P.(C) No.22474 of 2023
• Result in Favour of: Applicant
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: R CHIMANKA
• Assessee Lawyers: S S PADHY
• Keywords: Assessment year 2021-22; Condonation of delay; Form 10B; Impugned order; Digital compliance
• Section: 10B

Judgement Text

" Page 1 of 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 39878 of 2023 Indian Orphan Mission (IOM) …. Petitioner Mr. S.S. Padhy, Advocate -versus- Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) and another …. Opposite Parties Mr. R. Chimanka, Senior Standing Counsel CORAM: ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DR. B.R. SARANGI JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN ORDER 09.01.2024 Order No. 03. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Mr. S.S. Padhy, learned counsel appears on behalf of the petitioner-assessee and 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. S.S. Padhy, learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the petitioner filed application for condonation of delay for late filing of Form-10B pertaining to the Assessment Year 2021-22. The application was rejected by the impugned order dated 23rd October, 2023. He prays to set aside the impugned order and direct the Opposite Parties-Revenue to accept the Form-10B. Page 2 of 3 4. Mr. R. Chimanka, learned Senior Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the opposite parties-Revenue and justifies the impugned order by referring to the counter affidavit. 5. Perused the impugned order. On query from this Court, Mr. S.S. Padhy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner demonstrates that under cover of intimation letter dated 21st September, 2023 under Annexure-6, certain requisitions were made on furnishing information. The petitioner by letter dated 3rd October, 2023 under Annexure-7 series 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 letter is reproduced hereunder: “With reference to the assessee’s application for condonation of delay in filing Form 10 & 10 B for the A.Y.’s 2021-22 & 2022-23, cited under reference 1 above, it is to state that the assesse has filed Form 10 & 10B belatedly. The assesse has been requested to furnish certain information vide above cited reference 2, justifying its application for condonation of delay. However, the assesse has not submitted sufficient reason which prevented the assesse from filing the same, within the due date.” 7. In the requisition for information under Annexure-6, various information were sought for which also included query on reason Page 3 of 3 for delay. Reason furnished by the petitioner in that regard is quoted below: “ 14. Reason for delay The delay caused due to communication error with the Consultant. The assessee was not aware of such non-compliance. The lack of communication was also due to general health of the concerned Finance Officer.” 8. On perusal of the information furnished by the petitioner under Annexure-7 series, it appears that the information sought for have been furnished and documents referred to have been attached. This stood rejected. It is not clear why the rejection since information and documents sought for stood annexed to the reply. In the circumstances, the impugned order is without reason as apparent from the record. Accordingly, the impugned order stands set aside and quashed and the application is restored for reconsideration by the opposite party-Commissioner of Income Tax. 9. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules. (DR. B.R. SARANGI) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (M.S. RAMAN) JUDGE S.K. Guin/PA Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBASH KUMAR GUIN Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 12-Jan-2024 14:04:03 Signature Not Verified "