SRI KAREEMULLAHA V. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER

WP/4724/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Sri Kareemullah, the petitioner, who filed a writ petition against the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and other respondents, challenging an order that rejected his application for condonation of delay in submitting income tax returns. The petitioner argued that the delay was due to personal circumstances, including his illiteracy and his daughter's marriage, which prevented him from filing within the stipulated time. The respondents had processed the returns but later rejected the condonation request without adequate reasoning. The court found the rejection to be unreasoned and without proper application of mind, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and directing the respondents to process the refund claim.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 691731 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 16-09-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: E I SANMATHI
• Assessee Lawyers: NAGENDRA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; TDS refund; Writ of Certiorari; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 119(2)(b)

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.4724 OF 2022 (T-IT) BETWEEN: SRI KAREEMULLAHA S/O NOORULHA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/T NO 62, 3RD MAIN ROAD BANGALORE NORTH BENGALURU 560007 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NAGENDRA KUMAR K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (PCIT-4) (INTL. TAXN) SOUTH ZONE, BENGLAURU BMTC BUIDLING, 80 FEET ROAD 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU 560 095. 2 . THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTL. TAXN), SOUTH ZONE BENGALURU, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 6TH FLOOR, R P BUILDING NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU 560001 3 . THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 6TH FLOOR, R P BUILDING NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE ) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.07.2020 PASSED BY THE R-1 AS PER ANNEXURE-L AND ETC. 2 THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- ORDER In this petition, petitioner has sought for the following reliefs: a. Issue writ of certiorari or any appropriate order quashing the impugned order dated 28.07.2020 bearing Sl.No.ITBA/COM/F/17/ 2020-21/1027598910(1) passed by the 1st respondent, as per Annexure – L, in the interest of justice and equity. b. Issue writ of mandamus or any appropriate order directing the respondents to refund the TDS amount with interest to the petitioner, in the interest of justice and equity. c. Issue writ of mandamus or any appropriate order directing the respondents to pay cost to the petitioner, in the interest of justice and equity. d. Grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and necessary to be grant under circumstances of the above writ petition, in the interest of justice and equity. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3 3. The material on record discloses that the petitioner submitted his Income tax returns on 25.10.2018 and on 18.03.2020, request / application for condonation of delay under Section 119 (2) (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the ‘IT Act’) was filed intimating respondent No.1 that the delay in submitting the returns was on account of him being illiterate and due to the intervening marriage of his daughter and as such, it was not possible for him to submit the returns within the stipulated period. It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite the returns submitted by the petitioner having been processed by the CPC, by intimating the same to the petitioner vide Intimation / Communication dated 09.05.2020, the respondent No.1 has proceeded to subsequently pass the impugned order rejecting the application / request for condonation of the delay without appreciating that returns had already been processed and as such, the delay in submitting the returns has stood condoned by the respondents and as such, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. 4 4. It is also submitted that the request of the petitioner for refund has not been processed and necessary directions are to be issued to the respondents in this regard. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents fairly submits that the returns of the petitioner had already stood processed on 28.07.2020 itself and that the impugned order at Annexure – L has been passed and the same has been notified by the respondent No.1 in the impugned order. 6. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, despite noticing that the returns of the petitioner had already been processed and intimated to the petitioner on 09.05.2020 itself, the respondent No.1 clearly fell in error in rejecting the application for condonation of delay vide impugned order dated 28.07.2020, which is clearly unreasoned, non-speaking, laconic and cryptic order without any application of mind and without assigning valid or cogent reasons as to why application for condonation of 5 delay, which had already stood condoned by the processing of the returns was liable to be rejected. 7. At any rate, the reasoning contained in the impugned order for the purpose of rejecting the application for condonation of delay are without any application of mind and on this ground also, the impugned order dated 28.07.2020 deserves to be set aside and request / application for condonation of delay submitted by the petitioner deserves to be accepted. 8. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) Petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned order at Annexure – L dated 28.07.2020 passed by respondent No.1, is hereby set aside. (iii) Respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for refund of TDS paid by him in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 6 (iv) Since delay in submitting the returns has already been condoned in favour of the petitioner, respondents are directed to consider the request of refund, in accordance with law. Sd/- JUDGE SV "