SRI ABDUL RAHMAN BUKHARI P. B V. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF

WP/21870/2021

AI Insights

The case involves Sri Abdul Rahman Bukhari P. B, the petitioner, who sought to quash an order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru - 7, concerning the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13. The petitioner argued that due to bona fide reasons and unavoidable circumstances, he was unable to file the revision petition within the prescribed period. The Revisional Authority had dismissed the revision petition on merits after concluding that the delay could not be condoned, which the petitioner contested as impermissible in law. The court found merit in the petitioner's arguments, noting that the Revisional Authority erred by considering the claim on merits after deciding that the delay could not be condoned.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 697796 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 27-02-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, Section 264(1) of the Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: RAVI RAJ
• Assessee Lawyers: JINITA CHATTERJEE
• Keywords: Assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13; Condonation of delay; Revisional Authority; Writ of Certiorari; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 264(1)

Judgement Text

" - 1 - NC: 2024:KHC:7989 WP No. 21870 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 21870 OF 2021 (T-IT) BETWEEN: SRI ABDUL RAHMAN BUKHARI P. B AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS SON OF LATE SRI PSM BUKHARI NO.11, PRIMROSE ROAD NEAR M G ROAD BENGALURU - 560 025 …PETITIONER (BY SMT. JINITA CHATTERJEE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S PARTHASARATHI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU - 7 5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU - 560 095. 2. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1) BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU - 560 095. 3. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, RANGE -1 BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU - 560 095. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAVI RAJ Y V, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSITITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF THE R1 DATED 27.02.2018 PASSED U/S 264(1) OF THE ACT FOR THE Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:7989 WP No. 21870 of 2021 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011-12 AND 2012-13 IN FILE AT ANNEXURE-H AND ISSUE DIRECTION DIRECTING THE R1 TO CONSIDER THE CLAIM OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011-12 AND 2012-13 AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER In this petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs; \"(a) issue a Writ of Certiorari or a direction in the nature of Writ of Certiorari quashing the order of the 1st Respondent dated 27.02.2018 passed under Section 264(1) of the Act for the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13 in file F.No.01 & 02/164/PCIT/BNG-7/2017-18 (ANNEXURE-'H') (b) issue a Writ of Mandamus or a direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st Respondent to consider the claim of the Petitioner for the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13. (c) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or a direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st Respondent to set aside the assessment with a direction to the second and third Respondents to consider the claim of the Petitioner and to allow the same after providing an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner.\" 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:7989 WP No. 21870 of 2021 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, it was not possible for the petitioner to file the revision petition before respondent No.1 - Revisional Authority within prescribed period. It is submitted that the inability and omission on the part of the petitioner was wholly unintentional and on account of the petitioner not being able to collect the necessary particulars for the purpose of filing the revision petition within the prescribed period. It is also pointed out that respondent No.1 - Revisonal Authority committed a grave and serious error of law, in dismissing the revision petition on merits after having come to the conclusion that the delay cannot be condoned. In this context, it is submitted that having come to the conclusion that the delay cannot be condoned, it was not open for the Revisional Authority to advert to the merits of the claim of the petitioner and dismiss the petition on merits which is impermissible in law. It is submitted that the petitioner has a good case to urge on merits in the revision petition and as such, it is necessary to set-aside the impugned order and condone the delay in filing the revision petition and remit the matter back to the first respondent for re-consideration afresh, in accordance with law. - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:7989 WP No. 21870 of 2021 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would support the impugned order and submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed, especially when no valid or sufficient ground has been made out by the petitioner to seek condonation of delay. 5. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent No.1 - Revisional Authority clearly fell in error in considering the claim of the petitioner on merits, after having come to the conclusion that the delay cannot be condoned which is impermissible in law, in light of the well settled principle that once the Court / Authority comes to the conclusion that the delay cannot be condoned, it is impermissible to consider the claim of a party on merit and on this ground alone, the impugned order passed by the first respondent deserves to be set-aside. Further having regard to the specific assertion on the part of the petitioner that his inability and omission to file the revision petition within the prescribed period was due to bonafide reasons, unadvoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, I deem it just and appropriate to set-aside the impugned order by adopting the justice oriented approach and - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:7989 WP No. 21870 of 2021 remit the matter back to the first respondent for re-consideration on merits, by condoning the delay and in accordance with law. 6. In the result, the following; ORDER (i) Petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned order at Annexure-H dated 27.02.2018 is hereby set-aside and the matter is remitted back to the first respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. (iii) The delay in filing the revision petition stands condoned. (iv) First respondent is directed to reconsider the revision petition on merits without reference to limitation which stands concluded in favour of the petitioner, by virtue of this order. (iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to file additional pleadings / documents etc., - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:7989 WP No. 21870 of 2021 before the first respondent, who shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. The petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent No.1 on 18.03.2024. Sd/- JUDGE GH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2 "