M/S JOHARIMAL HIGH SCHOOL, CUTTACK V. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD.

WP(C)/3183/2025

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Joharimal High School, Cuttack, as the petitioner, who faced a procedural hurdle with the Income Tax authority regarding the filing of Form-10B. Initially, the authority rejected the application due to a technical issue, claiming the form was filed incorrectly as Form-10BB. After the High Court's intervention in a previous writ petition, the authority was directed to treat the application as filed under Form-10B. However, the authority still refused to condone the delay in filing, citing an unsatisfactory explanation for the delay. The petitioner contested this decision, leading to the current writ petition where the court found that the authority had not adequately considered the explanation provided for the delay and had applied the law too strictly without considering the context.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 746595 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 05-04-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: S C MOHANTY; A KEDIA
• Assessee Lawyers: BIJAY PANDA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Form 10B; Sufficient cause; Technical Issue
• Section: 119(2)(b)

Judgement Text

" Page 1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.3183 of 2025 M/s. Joharimal High School, Cuttack …. Petitioner Represented by Adv.– Mr. Bijay Panda, Advocate -Versus- The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Hyderabad and others …. Opposite Parties Represented by Adv.– Mr. S.C. Mohanty, Senior Standing Counsel Mr. A. Kedia, Junior Standing Counsel CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY Order No. ORDER 05.04.2025 01. 1. This is a second round of litigation before this Court at the behest of the petitioner raising a grievance relating to a decision of the authority in condoning the delay in filing Form-10B under Section-119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act. 2. The earlier rejection was founded upon the technical issue having raised by the authority that instead of submission in Form- 10B, it was filed under Form-10BB. The said order was assailed before this Court and by an order dated 27th August, 2024, the writ Page 2 of 5 petition was disposed of directing the authority to treat such application to have been filed under Form-10B and proceed to decide the matter. By the impugned order, the authority has refused to condone the delay taking into account that the explanation offered occasioning the delay is not satisfactory, more particularly, it is obligatory on the part of the assesse to explain the delay on day-to-day basis. 3. We are not unmindful of the proposition of law that the purpose of incorporating the provision relating to a limitation is to avoid any delayed application and to bring certainty into an adjudicatory process. It is to give quietest to an issue in relation to a dormant and lethargic litigant/assesse who should not approach the authorities at their sweet will, that too, after an inordinate delay having caused. Equally, we cannot overlook that the statute bestowed power upon the authority to condone the delay provided the person approaching such authority provides a satisfactory explanation resulted into filing of the delayed application or in this case, Form-10B. It is no doubt that unless there is such satisfactory explanation offered by the assesse, the authority cannot condone Page 3 of 5 the delay simpliciter on the ipse dixit of the prayer made in the said application. 4. The assesse must give a sufficient explanation which is reasonable, plausible and constitute a sufficient cause to exercise the powers conferred under the statue. It is not necessary that the day-to-day explanation is required, but there must be a continuity of the events which on a meaningful reading thereof would complete the chain of the events, provided it comes within the ambit of “sufficient cause” appearing in the statutory provisions. 5. Neither the Court nor the authority should take up pedantic approach in finding out the fault in an application for condonation of delay with an intent to achieve the dismissal thereof, but must adopt a liberal and justice oriented approach so that the justice may be imparted and the issue raised is decided on merit. 6. It appears to us that the authority has taken a stricter view and without adverting to the explanation offered has proceeded on the basis of the ratio of law called out from the various judgment of the apex Court. The law has to be applied not in an adjunct Page 4 of 5 manner, but in the perspective of the context, i.e., the facts involved therein as each fact cannot be equated with the other facts and, therefore, a pragmatic approach is required in relation to an application for condonation of delay. 7. We, after looking into the explanation so offered and the fact that initially the petitioner approach this Court against the decision of the authority taken on the basis of the technicalities and the reasons which occasioned the delay, are satisfied that the petitioner was prevented by a sufficient cause in not filing the said Form within the statutory period provided therefor. We do not find any fetter on the part of the authority in condoning the delay as no outer cap is fixed in the statutory provision and, therefore, the authority ought to have condoned the delay instead of dismissing the Form on the anvil of limitation. 8. The order impugned in this writ petition is hereby set aside. As a consequence whereof, the application for condonation of delay filed before the authority stands allowed. 9. The authority is directed to consider the Form-10B under Section-119 (2)(b) of the Income Tax Act on merit and it is Page 5 of 5 expected that the said authority would decide the issue after providing the reasons in accordance with law within two months from the date of communication of this order. 10. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of. (Harish Tandon) Chief Justice (B.P. Routray) Judge S.K. Guin/PA A. Nanda Digitally Signed Signed by: ANISHA NANDA Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 07-Apr-2025 19:12:36 Signature Not Verified "