M/s Children in the Middle V. Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Finance and The Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption, Hyderabad and The Income Tax Officer Exemptions, Cuttack

WP/31041/2024

AI Insights

The case involves M/s Children in the Middle, represented by its Director Mr. Sarat Chandra Pradhan, who filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the Union of India and other respondents concerning the rejection of their application for condonation of delay in filing Form 108 for various assessment years. The petitioner also sought the de-freezing of their bank accounts which were frozen following a demand raised by the Income Tax Department. The High Court found that the impugned order lacked reasoning and discussion on the petitioner's grounds for delay, which is essential for judicial scrutiny. The court also addressed the issue of territorial jurisdiction, affirming its jurisdiction as a part of the cause of action arose within its territory.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 815522 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 14-11-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Sri Gopalaswamy Educational Society, Siddavatam, Siddavatam Mandal, Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh, India, represented by its Secretary v. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Hyderabad and another passed in WP.No.7458 of 2024
• 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: A REDDY
• Assessee Lawyers: AAKRITI DHAWAN
• Keywords: Bank account freeze; Condonation of delay; Income tax exemption; Writ of Certiorari
• Section: 119(2)(b); 226

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE-STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE $RI:JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL THE HoNoURABLE SRI .TusTIcITXTvTAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAo TITION NO:31 041 0F 2024 ...PETITIONER WRIT PE M/s chirdren in the Middre, B\"q Fv its_Director Mr. sarat chandra pradhan o/o Nad iabhansa, Danasadi ououri, i\"idui-iSdbzribiilr,r. Between: AND 1 Union of lndia, Throuoh Secretary, Ministry of Finance, North glock New Delhi-110001 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax Exbmption, Hyderabad Aayakar Bhavan Basheer Bagh Hyderabad 3. The lncome Tax Officer Exemptions, Cuttack ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 of rhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fi,ed therewith, the High court may be pleased to a' lssue a writ of certiorari or;any other writ, order or direction setting aside the impugned order dated 05.12.2023 passed by the Respondent No. 2, and b Direct the Respondent No. 2 to condone the deray in filing Form 108 and accordingly accept Form 10B filed by the petitioner for assessment years 2016_ 17,2020-21 ,2021-22 and 2022-23, and a Direct the Respondents to de-freeze the Petitioner's bank account bearing no.202301000050 in rcrcr Bank and bank account bearing no. 108353.10011 in SBI Bank, frozen by the Department pursuant to the demand raised vide letter,dated 21 .08.2023. [3411] i lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with the filing of a certified copy of the Order dated 05.12.2023. IA O:1 OF 024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to de- freeze lhe Pgtitioners bank account bearing no. 202301000050 in ICICI Bank and p4nk agcount bearing no. 10835310011,in SBI Bank, frozen by the Department pursuant to the demand raised vide letter:dated 21 .08.2023. counsel ror the Petitio\"\"' ' H.l3[,113JfH;'roHARrHA counser ror the Respondents:,:::,t[iflt[SLT[fi3ER?fdr sc ror rry The Court made the following: ORDER I n THE HOT{OURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESITWAR RAO ORDER: (per Hon'ble Si Justice Sujog paul) With the consent, finally heard. 2. Ms.Aakriti Dhawan, learned counsel representing Sri E.Venkata Siddhartha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the second respondent has committed an error in rejecting the application for condonation of delay Iiled under Section 119(2Xb) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. By impugned order, dated 05. 12.2023, no reasons are assigned as to why the ground taken by the petitioner did not suite the appellate authority. k WRIT PETITION No.31O41 OF 2O?4 3. A.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel representing on behalf of Sri A.Radha Krishna, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department, submits that although, the impugned order is passed by the second respondent from Hyderabad, the petitioner is situated at Duburi, Jajpur (Odisha). Thus, the third respondent is also stationed at Odisha. In this backdrop, the petitioner may be relegated to avail the remedy before a competent Court at Odisha. He placed reliance on the decision of a Coordinate Bench in Sri Gopalaswamy Educational Society, Siddavatam, Siddavatam Mandal, Kadapa, Andhra pradesh, I I 2 India, represented by its Secretary v. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptionsf, Hyderabad and another passed in WP.No.7458 of 2024. No other point is pressed. 4. We have heard the parties at length. 5. The impugned order (Annexure P. 1) is, admittedly, issued from Hyderabad. Thus, at ieast, a minuscule part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Thus, it cannot be said that as per clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, that even a small part of cause of action has not arisen within the territory of this Court. In the case of Sri Gopalaswamy Educational Society (supra), the Coordinate Bench has thought it proper to relegate the matter before the appropriate High Court. However, a plain reading of the order shows that the matter was not examined by making a reference to Article 226 (21 of the Constitution. In the teeth of said enabling provision, it cannot be said that, this Court has no jurisdiction. Thus, we are not inclined to reject the petition on the ground of want of territorial jurisdiction. 6. The impugned order rejecting the application for condonation of delay shoq.s that only in paragraph No. 1 Iinding is recorded that \"however, the assessee has not submitted sufficient reason which prevented the assessee from filing the same, within 3 the due date\". In our considered opinion, the aforesaid finding is infact 'conclusion' arrived at by the second respondent. There is no iota of discussion in the entire order relating to the reasons assigned by the petitioner for condonation of deray in Annexures P. 10 to 13. The 'reasons, are held to be heart beats of the tonclusion'. The Apex court in Kranthi dssociates private Limited vs. Mq.sood Ahmed Khanl emphasized the need of assigning reasons in administrative, quasi-judicial and judicial orders. The appellate authority being quasi-judicial authority was obliged to assign reasons to show application of mind and to ensure transparency. ln absence thereof, the impugned order cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. If paragraph Nos-3 to 7 0l the impugned order is examined, it will be clear that from paragraph No.3 to 5, the learned authority has just reproduced the ratio decidendi of certain judgments. In paragraph No.6, he discussed about the judgment and principles flowing therefrom. In paragraph No.7, he mechanically recorded that in view of above reasons, the application is rejected. 7. A microscopic reading of entire order leaves no room for any doubt that there is no discussion at all on the r€asons actually furnished by the petitioner in the application for condonation of delay. Thus, the impugned order deserves to be jettisoned. /i I I ) ' lzotols scc +so 4 B. Resultantly, the impugned order is set aside. The matter is restored in the file of the second respondent. He shall rehear the petitioner and pass a fresh order, in accordance with law. 9. Accordingly, the Writ petition is disposed of expressing arry view on the merits of the case. No costs. without Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-P. PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTIO]OOFFICER To, 1. The Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Finance, North Block New Delhi- 1 10001 2. fhe Commissioner of lncome Tax Elemption, Hyderabad Aayakar Bhavan Basheer Bagh Hyderabad 3. The lncome Tax Officer Exemptions. Cuttack 4 One CC to SRI E.VENKATA SIDDHARTHA, Advocate. [OPUC] 5. One CC to SRI A.RADHA KRISHNA: (Sr SC For lT DEPT). toPUCl Q* I r- 6. Two CD Copies. BSK BS I I HIGH COURT DATED:14111t2024 ORDER WP.No.31041 of 2024 ft DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS o D€Sr,^r 2-n rl >Y .i r E S A j I ? 1 N[ l ?024 :)) i,/ g Cegie>, "