M/S. SOUTH INDIA ASSEMBLIES OF GOD V. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)

WP/31044/2019

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. South India Assemblies of God, represented by its treasurer, challenging the rejection of their application for exemption under Section 11(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The application was initially rejected by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) on the grounds that it was not e-filed and the condonation of delay was filed belatedly. The petitioner argued that e-filing was not mandated for the relevant assessment year and that the delay in filing the condonation application was justifiable. The court agreed with the petitioner, highlighting procedural errors and the lack of statutory intent to deny the claim based on the cited grounds.

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 754914 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 21-01-2020
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. NAGAPPA, ILR 1985 (2) KAR 2374
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Income Tax Rules, 1962
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: E I SANMATHI
• Assessee Lawyers: A SHANKAR
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; E-filing; Income tax exemption; Quasi-judicial authority; Writ petition
• Section: 119(2)(b); 11(2); 11(1)(a); 12A(a); 226; 227

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2020 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO. 31044 OF 2019 (T-IT) BETWEEN: M/S. SOUTH INDIA ASSEMBLIES OF GOD REPRESENTED BY ITS TREASURER, SRI.T.S.RAJASEKHAR, S/O SRI.I.W.DHARMA SINGH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, FULL GOSPEL ASSEMBLY OF GOD, WORSHIP CENTRE, NO.189, 6TH MAIN, DEFENCE COLONY, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 038. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. A SHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. M LAVA, SRI. ANNAMALAI S, SRI. BHAIRAV KUTTAIAH, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) BANGALORE 6TH FLOOR, UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE, P.KALINGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 027. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTRE, POST BAG NO.2, ELECTRONIC CITY POST OFFICE, BANGALORE-560 100. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE1, UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE, P.KALINGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 027. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. E I SANMATHI, ADVOCATE) 2 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTIN 119(2)(b) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 READ WITH RULE 17 OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 BY THE R-1 DATED 21.06.2019 ANNEXURE-A AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- ORDER Petitioner-Trust claiming to be registered u/s.12A(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 having suffered disallowing of the amount of accumulation made u/s.11(2) & 11(1)(a) had applied in Form-10 seeking exemption; the same came to be rejected on the ground that it was not e-filed despite the shift from manual to e-filing and that the application for condonation of delay was made belatedly i.e., long after filing of Form-10. This is challenged in the present writ petition. 2. The respondents having entered appearance through their Panel Counsel resist the writ petition making submission in justification of impugned action. 3 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is of a considered opinion that, reprieve needs to be granted to the petitioner as under for the following reasons: a) Form-10 seeking exemption under Section 11(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was filed on 31.03.2016 and the application seeking condonation of delay was filed on 06.09.2018; it is a settled principle of law that when the claim is made belatedly, it is open to the claimant to offer explanation for the delay so brooked, subsequent to making the claim also vide Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. NAGAPPA, ILR 1985 (2) KAR 2374 in the absence of statutory intent to the contrary; although, a proceeding arising under a Tax Statute is bit different from the Court proceedings, that difference does not come in the way of treating the ratio of the said decision as a general norm to be followed by quasi-judicial authorities as well, as long as there is a provision for condoning the delay; b) the purported ground mentioned in the impugned order for rejecting petitioner’s claim for exemption u/s.11(2) of the Act that he had not uploaded Form–10 by 4 e-filing is faultsome inasmuch as, the claim related to the Assessment Year 2015-16 when e-filing was not yet prescribed; even otherwise, the answering respondent could have instructed the petitioner to make e-filing of the claim so that the petitioner would have had a fair treatment at the hands of the respondent-authorities; thus, there is an error apparent on the face of the record; and, c) since admittedly, the exemption of the kind which the petitioner had sought for is granted for the subsequent Assessment Years, the respondent-authorities are not justified in rejecting petitioner’s claim for exemption for the Assessment Year 2015-16 on the grounds purported in the impugned order. In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds in part; the impugned order having been quashed, the matter is remitted back to the answering respondents for consideration afresh, within a period of three months in accordance with law. 5 It is open to the respondents to solicit any information or records from the side of the petitioner, as are required for due consideration of the matter; however, in the guise of such solicitation delay shall not be brooked. All contentions of the parties are kept open. No costs. Sd/- JUDGE Bsv "