SRI KOLA VENKAT RAMA NAIDU V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP/24951/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Sri Kola Venkata Rama Naidu, the petitioner, who sought to quash an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and to have his appeal considered on merits after accepting additional documents. The petitioner faced a delay in filing his appeal due to the ill-health and subsequent demise of his father, which the Commissioner initially did not condone, leading to the dismissal of the appeal as barred by limitation. The High Court found that the Commissioner had adopted a hyper-technical approach contrary to the principles of condonation of delay, especially in light of recent Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the importance of the cause for delay over its length.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 751070 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 12-09-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Mool Chandra Vs. Union of India \/ Civil Appeal No.8435\/2024 arising out of SLP. (Civil) No.2733\/2024 dated 05.08.2024
• Laws Referred To: Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: M DILIP
• Assessee Lawyers: M V SESHACHALA; NAGHARISH S
• Keywords: Assessment Year 2013-14; Condonation of delay; Hyper-technical approach; Income Tax; Writ of Certiorari
• Section: CIT(A), Bengaluru \/ 6\/10116\/2016-17

Judgement Text

" - 1 - NC: 2024:KHC:37524 WP No. 24951 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 24951 OF 2024 (T-IT) BETWEEN: SRI KOLA VENKAT RAMA NAIDU S/O CHINNABBA NAIDU KOLA AGED 55 YEARS R/AT NO. 13, RMV 2ND STAGE, GOWDA COLONY, 4TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN ROAD, DOLLAR COLONY, BANGALORE-560094. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.M.V.SESHACHALA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. NAGHARISH G S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WARD -6(3)(1) 80 FEET ROAD, BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560095. 2. PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 6 80 FEET ROAD, BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560095. 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-11 C R BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE-560095. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.DILIP., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDDA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-3 ORDER DTD 30.04.2024 ANNEXURE-D BEARING APPEAL NO. CIT(A), BENGALURU-6/10116/2016-17 PASSED BY THE R-3 FOR A.Y. 2013- Digitally signed by LEELAVATHI S R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:37524 WP No. 24951 of 2024 14 AND DIRECT THE R-3 TO CONSIDER THE APPEAL ON MERITS AFTER ACCEPTING THE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE CASE, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERSHEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 1. In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs- “a. Issue a Writ of certiorari to quash the order passed by the third respondent order dated 30.04.2024 Annexure-D bearing Appeal No.CIT(A), Bengaluru – 6/10116/2016-17 passed by the third respondent for A.Y.2013-14 and direct the third respondent to consider the appeal on merits after accepting the additional documents in support of the case. b. Issue such other Writ or direction as this Hon’ble Court deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the present case.” 2. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record would indicate that pursuant to the petitioner filing Income Tax returns for the Assessment year 2013-14, scrutiny assessments were conducted on 03.09.2014 and a survey was conducted on 02.03.2015 which - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:37524 WP No. 24951 of 2024 culminated in an assessment order dated 31.03.2016 passed by the Assessing Officer. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that due to ill-health of his deceased father, the petitioner was not in a position to file the appeal before respondent No.3 – Commissioner within the prescribed period and there was a delay of 82 days in filing the appeal. The petitioner having sought for condonation of delay, respondent No.3 – Commissioner proceeded to pass the impugned order refusing to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. Aggrieved by which the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. 5. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that respondent No.3 has adopted a Hyper-Technical approach and refused to condone the delay of 82 days in filing the appeal which is not only contrary to the well settled principles governing the condonation of delay, but also the recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mool Chandra Vs. Union of India – Civil Appeal No.8435/2024 arising out of SLP. (Civil) No.2733/2024 dated 05.08.2024, wherein it is held that it is not the length of the delay, but the cause - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:37524 WP No. 24951 of 2024 shown for the condonation of delay that is relevant for the purpose of condonation of delay. 6. In the instant case, the petitioner has specifically contended that due to ill-health and demise of his father, the petitioner could not file the appeal within the prescribed period and consequently, adopting the Justice oriented approach and in order to enable the appellant to putforth his contentions on merits, I deem it appropriate to set aside the order and condone the delay in filing the appeal and direct respondent No.3 to dispose of the appeal on merits in accordance with law. 7. In the result, the following : ORDER i. The petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 30.04.2024 vide Annexure-D is hereby set aside. iii. The delay of 82 days in filing the appeal before respondent No.3 is hereby condoned. - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:37524 WP No. 24951 of 2024 iv. The respondent No.3 is directed to dispose of the appeal of the petitioner on merits in accordance with law after providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. v. Liberty is reserved in favour of the parties to file pleadings, documents etc., which shall be considered by respondent No.3 to proceed further in accordance with law. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE HNM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 18 "