NANDANA VIVIDHODESHA SOUHARDA V. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER

WP/2200/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Nandana Vividhodesha Souharda Co-operative Limited, which sought to quash an order from the Income Tax Department that rejected their application for condonation of delay in filing income tax returns for the assessment year 2021-22. The petitioner argued that the delay was due to unavoidable circumstances, specifically the health issues of their Chartered Accountant's father, which prevented timely filing. The Income Tax Department's rejection was criticized for being non-reasoned and cryptic. The High Court found that the petitioner had provided sufficient cause for the delay and that the department's order lacked adequate reasoning, leading to the decision to set aside the impugned order and allow the filing of the delayed returns.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 725977 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 30-01-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: M DILIP
• Assessee Lawyers: SUYOG E
• Keywords: Assessment year 2021-22; Condonation of delay; Income Tax Returns; Non-speaking order
• Section: 119(2)(b)

Judgement Text

" - 1 - NC: 2024:KHC:4105 WP No. 2200 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.2200 OF 2024 (T-IT) BETWEEN: NANDANA VIVIDHODESHA SOUHARDA CO-OPERATIVE LIMITED, REGISTERED UNDER KARNATAKA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI ACT, 1997, HEGDE ARCADE, MAIN ROAD, PUTTUR-574 201 REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SRI. SOMASHEKAR. M S/O SRI. KORAGAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUYOG HERELE E, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, PANAJI / MANGALORE AAYAKAR BHAVAN, PLOT NO.5, EDC COMPLEX, PATTO PLAZA, PANAJAI, GOA-403001 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, PUTTUR, THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 INCOME TAX OFFICE, RADHIKA COMPLEX COURT ROAD, PUTTUR-574201 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.DILIP, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25/05/2023 IN F.NO.344/119(2)(b)/PR.CIT-PNJ/2023- Digitally signed by VANDANA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:4105 WP No. 2200 of 2024 24 (PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY R1 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2021-22 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION SEEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY (PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE- D). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER In this writ petition, petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned order dated 25.05.2023 at Annexure-A whereby the respondent rejected the application filed by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay in filing of tax returns of the income for the assessment year 2021-22. 2. A perusal of the material on record would indicate that the petitioner filed the instant application dated 02.01.2023 under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 seeking condonation of delay in filing the returns of income tax for the assessment year 2021-22. It was specifically contended that the petitioner had given its books of account to our Chartered Accountant for audit and due to the Chartered Accountant’s father having got admitted to the hospital due to health problems, it was not possible for the Chartered Account to file income tax returns during the assessment year 2021-22 in time. It was also - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:4105 WP No. 2200 of 2024 contended that the inability and omission on the part of the petitioner to file returns of income tax was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause and in the light of the Circular dated 09.06.2015, the petitioner was entitled to seek condonation of delay in filing the returns. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the said application has been summarily rejected by the respondent by the cryptic, laconic, non-speaking and unreasoned order without assigning any reason as to why the explanation given by the petitioner was not accepted by the respondent and also as to why parameters prescribed in the Circular had not been complied with by the petitioner, who is before this Court by way of present petition. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would support the impugned order and submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 4. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, a perusal of the impugned order will indicate that absolutely no reasons have been assigned by the respondent except stating that the parameters contemplated under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act as elaborated in the Circular, - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:4105 WP No. 2200 of 2024 dated 09.06.2015, have not been complied with / fulfilled by the petitioner. 5. In this regard, the respondent had failed to appreciate that valid and sufficient ground had been made out by the petitioner for non-filing of income tax returns which clearly constitutes sufficient cause / ground for non-filing of returns of income tax and consequently, the petitioner was entitled for condonation of delay in filing of returns of the income for the assessment year 2021-22 and as such, the impugned non-speaking and unreasoned order passed by the respondent deserves to be set aside and the application, dated 02.01.2023, deserves to be allowed. 6. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is hereby allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 25.05.2023 vide Annexure-A passed by the respondent is hereby set aside. iii) The application dated 02.01.2023 filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2021-22 is hereby allowed; and - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:4105 WP No. 2200 of 2024 iv) The petitioner is permitted to file returns for the said assessment year i.e., 2021-22, which shall be considered by the respondent, who shall proceed further in accordance with law. Sd/- JUDGE SV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 28 "