Janardhan Murarkar V. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad - 2 and The Central Board of Direct Taxes, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi

WP/7742/2025

AI Insights

Janardhan Murarkar filed three writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad, and the Central Board of Direct Taxes, challenging the rejection of his applications for condonation of delay in filing Income Tax returns for three consecutive assessment years. The petitioner argued that the rejections were arbitrary, mechanical, and without proper application of mind, as they did not consider the compelling personal circumstances he faced, including the death of his father and his own health issues during the COVID-19 pandemic. The court found that the authorities had not adequately addressed the reasons provided by the petitioner for the delays and had not considered the merits of his case as required under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 808341 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 18-03-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: J SUNITHA
• Assessee Lawyers: A V RAGHURAM
• Keywords: Application of mind; Condonation of delay; Income Tax Returns; Mechanical Order; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 119(2)(b)

Judgement Text

"13447 1 HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION NOS: 7742 7514 7525 0F 2025 W.P.NO: 7742OF 2025 Between: Janardhan Murarkar, S/o Late Sri M. Rajaram, aged about 50 years, R/o. D. No. 4-571 1, Uppertakdim Nizamabad 503001, Telangana. ...PETITIONER AND 1 2 The Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax, Hyderabad - 2, Signature Towers, Sy. No. 6(P) of Kondapur, Sy. No 37(P) of Kothaguda, 9pP.^^^ _ Botanical Gardens, Serilingampally (lV1), R R District, Hyderabad - 500084' The Central Board of DireCt Taxes, , Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi. ...RES'ONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of a writ of Mandamus declaring the order dated OSlOgl2O24 bearing DIN No' ITBA/COM/F/I712024-2511068382677(1)passed by Respondent No. 1 u/s' 119(2Xb) of the Act for the AY. 2020-21, as being arbitrary, mechanical, perverse, without application of mind, bad in law and consequently set aside the same directing -the Respondent No.1 to condone the delay enabling the Petitioner to file his retu rn for the asst. year 2020-21 . Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A.V.RAGHU RAM Counsel for the Respondents: M/s. J.SUNITHA, JUNIOR SC FOR INCOME TAX Between: Janardhan Murarkar, S/o. Late Sd M- Rajaram, aged about 50 years, Fi/o. D. No. 4-5-11, Uppertakdim Nizamabad 5O3O01, Telangana. ...'ET'T'ONER AND '1. The Principal Commissioner, of lncorne Tax, Hyderabad - 2, Signature Towers, Sy. No. 6(P) of Kondapur, Sy. No. 3(P) of Kothaguda, Opp. Botanical Gardens, Serilingampally (M), R.R. District, Hyderabad - 500084. 2. The Central Board of Direct Taxes, Ministry of Finarrce, Department of Revenue' North Block' New Delhi ...RES'.NDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewath, the High Court may be pteased to issue a writ, order or direction more particulady in the nature of a writ of Mandamus declaring the order dated O5lOgl2O24 bearing DIN No. (ITBtuCOM/F/1 712024-2511068382415( 1 ) passed by Respondent No. 1 u/s. 119(2Xb) of the Act for the AY, 2022-23, as being arbitrary, mechanical, perverse, without application of mind, bad in law and consequently set aside the same directinq the Respondent No.1 to condone the delay enabling the Petitioner to file his return for the asst. year 2O22-23 - Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A-V.RAGHU RAM Counsel for the Respondents: M/s. J-SUNITHA, JUNIOR SC FOR INCOME TAX W.P.NO: 7525 OF 2025 Between: Janardhan Murarkar, S/o. Late Sri M. Rajaram, aged about 5O years. fil/o. D. No. 4-5-1 1, Uppertakdam Nizamabad 5O3O01, Telangana. ...PET|T|ONER AND 1 . The Principal Commissioner of lncorre Tax, *{yderabad 2, Signature Towers, Sy. No- 6(P) of Kondapur, Sy. No. 37(P) of Kothaguda, Opp. Aotanical Gardens, Serilingampally (M), R.R. District, Hyderabad - 50@84 2. The Central Board of D,irect Taxes, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue' North Block' New Delhi ...RES'.NDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particulady in the nature of a writ of W.P.NO: 7514 oF 2025 Mandamus declaring the order dated 05/O9/2024 bearing D{N No. tTBfuCOM/F/l 712024-2511068382599(1) passed by Respondent No. 1 u/s. 119(2Xb) of the Act for the AY 2021 -22, as being artitrary, mechanical, perverse, without application of mind, bad in law and @nsequently set askle the same d irecting the Respondent No. l to condone the delay enabling ttre Petitioner to file his retum for the asst. year 2021-2?. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI AV.RAGHU RAM Counsel for the Respondents: M/s. J.SUNITHA, JUNIOR SC FOR INCOME TAX The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER HON'BLE SRI WSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION NOS.7742 75L4 7525 oF 2025 coMMON ORDER: $ter Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY) Since the parties and the issue involved in these three writ petitions are common, they are being heard together and disposed of by way of this common order. 2. These three writ petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India' are Iiled seeking to quash the orders, dated O5.Og.2024 bearing DIN No.lTBA I COMIF l17 12024- 25/ to683a2677(rl; DIN No.lTBA /CoM lF l17 12024- 2sl 106s3824ls(1) and DIN No'ITBA/CoM lFltT I 2024- 25 / 1068382599(ll respectively, passed by respondent No' 1 whereby applications hled by the petitioner seeking to condone the detay in filing Income Tax returns for the Assessment Years 202O- 2021,2022-2O23 and 2O2l-2O22 were rejected' 3. Heard Mr. A.V.Raghu Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. J.Sunitha, learned Junior Standing Counsel for lncome Tax Department appearing for the respondents' 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in terms of the provisions of Section 119 (2) {b) of the Income Act, l96l (for short, 'the Act, 1961'), the Principal Commissioner ol ) 2 Income Tax has the power to condone the delay, provided the provide jqstifrable reasons for petitioner 'has been able to condoning the delay in filing the Income Tax Retums and secondly the petitioner has to make out a strong case on merits. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that neither of the two conditions have been scrutinized nor looked into by the authorities concerned and have passed the impugned orders in a mechanical manner without application of mind and without giving an,v reasons lor rejecting applications as per Section I 19 (2)(b) o[ the Acr, I 96l. 6' Insofar as delay part is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the authorities concerned have not discussed as to rvhy they have not given any reason for the delay caused to be not satisfactory. According to him, the petitioner has specifically pleacled with documentary proof to show that during the intervenir-rg period there was certain compelling circumstances prevailing in the family, first being death of his father, second being the petitioner himself got inflicted with covlD_19, the third reason assigned was that there was medical emergency that occurred to the sister of the petitioner and on account otwhich the petitioner was not in a position to complete and submit the Income Tax Returns in time. ln spite of specific pleading, the authorities concerned have not discussed any ofthese circumstances to be not PSK,J&NNR,] r!p_7742_2025&batch 3 satisfactory in condonation of the delay' also have not discussed anything so The authorities concerned far as the Petitioner not having any merits in the submissions that he has made so far as the returns are concerned' 7. A plain reading of the provisions of Section 119 (2)(b) oftheAct,196l,itisevidentlyclearthatpowershavebeen entrusted upon the Principal Commissioner' In the instant case' there appears to be delay roughly spanning between 2-2t/z to 3-3Yz years in non-submission of the returns for the Assessment Years 2O2O-2O21, 2O2l -2022 and' 2022-2023 ' In a given case' sufficient explanation being was provided by the petitioner for condoning the delay for submission of the returns' a. Further, on a reading of Section 119 (2)(b) of the Act' Lg6l , it gives a clear indication that the authorities while considering the said applications if it considers it desirable or expedient, the said powers are to be exercised ensuring avoiding genuine hardship in any case or class ofcases' In the instant case, plain reading of impugned orders would reveal that except referring to the objections of the JAO and Range Head' no other reasons were mentioned' The authorities have in fact not explained or dealt with the reasons assigned by the seeking for condonation of delay' Except for one petitioner Iine order, ASSCSSEC having been failed to produce the substantial evidence' PSK,J&NNR,J wp 7742-2025&batch 4 PSK,J&NNR,J wp_7742-2025&batch there is no further impugned order. 9. For the reasoning or discussion reflected in the above reasons, we are of the considered oplnron that the impugned orders so far as rejection of condonation petitions under Section I 19 (2)(b) of the Act, 196l is bad in law and also not sustainable and same therefore deserves to be set aside and accordingly set aside. The authorities concerned are hereb5r directeC to scrutinize the retums furnished by the petitioner along u,ith the appli661i6ns filed under Section 1ig(2)(b) of the Act, I 96 I and thereafter permit the petitioner to upload the return and thercupon accept and the same may be processed, in accordance u,ith lau,. 10. Witl-r the above direction, these three Writ petitions are 'I'here shall be no order as to costs. disposed of closed Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand To 1 2. 3 4 5 PSK. GJP cil? / //TRUE COPYII ,r.otk';.JA\"3i$na. HIGH COURT DATED:1810312025 COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.77 42, 7 514, I S2S oI 2025 ( rHE S I,, r(: 2 9 llni 29[ c ( z o L o s 1)'-.'; ^.\"sgo DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS r/t? iaxt't "