Sri. Muddanna Channakeshava V. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -1(2) and Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -1(2) and Tax Recovery Officer (Central) and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central and Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals (11)

WP/14599/2024

AI Insights

The petitioner, Sri. Muddanna Channakeshava, challenged the order dated 22.03.2024 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which rejected the condonation of a 117-day delay in filing an appeal against the assessment order for the year 2016-17. The petitioner argued that the delay should be condoned based on the abatement of the assessment proceedings, referencing the law declared in Canara Housing Development Co. Vs. DCIT. The High Court noted that a similar delay had been previously condoned for the same assessee in a related case (W.P.No.14546/2024) and found that the Commissioner had taken a hyper-technical approach in rejecting the condonation of delay. Consequently, the court set aside the Commissioner’s order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 797297 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 11-06-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Canara Housing Development Co. Vs. DCIT (2014) 49 taxmann.com 98
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: M DILIP
• Assessee Lawyers: M V SESHACHALA; NAGHARISH
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Income tax assessment; Jurisdiction; Writ of Certiorari
• Section: 153A

Judgement Text

" - 1 - NC: 2024:KHC:20499 WP No. 14599 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 14599 OF 2024 (T-IT) BETWEEN: SRI. MUDDANNA CHANNAKESHAVA, S/O LATE MUDDANNA, AGED 55 YEARS, R/AT NO. 96, BILISHIVALE VILLAGE, HENNUR MAIN ROAD, KOTHANUR POST, BENGALURU - 560 077. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.V. SESHACHALA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NAGHARISH G.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2), C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2), C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. 3. TAX RECOVERY OFFICER (CENTRAL), C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. 4. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL, Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:20499 WP No. 14599 of 2024 C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. 5. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS (11), ROOM NO. 322, 3RD FLOOR, C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. DILIP, JR. STANDING COUNSEL) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 22/03/2024 PASSED BY THE FIFTH RESPONDENT IN APPEAL NO. CIT(A)-11/BNG/10005/2019-20 ANNEXURE-E FOR AY 2016-17 REJECTING THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AND CONSEQUENTLY THE APPEAL ITSELF AND DIRECT THE FIFTH RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE APPEAL ON MERITS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER I.A.No.1/2024 is allowed. The petitioner is dispensed with the production of certified copy of Annexure-E. 2. The petitioner has called in question the correctness of the order dated 22.03.2024 passed by respondent No.5 rejecting the application for condonation of delay and consequently rejecting the appeal itself for the assessment year 2016-17. The petitioner has also - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:20499 WP No. 14599 of 2024 sought for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the second assessment order dated 30.09.2021 passed by respondent No.1 for the assessment year 2016-17 and has sought for directions to pass fresh re-assessment under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') 3. The petitioner has challenged the assessment order passed under Section 153A of the Act by way of an appeal and there was a delay of 117 days which however was declined to be condoned as per the order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) at Annexure-'E'. 4. It is noticed that the order in the appeal previously was a common order as regards the assessment year 2011-12 and 2016-17 which was subject matter of consideration of W.P.No.14546/2024, this Court by a detailed order has set aside the order rejecting the condonation of delay. - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:20499 WP No. 14599 of 2024 5. In the present case, it is noticed that in the application for condonation of delay filed contention taken up is that the proceedings for assessment which is subject matter of appeal stood abated in light of law declared in Canara Housing Development Co. Vs. DCIT reported in (2014) 49 taxmann.com 98. It is stated that in light of such position of law, delay of 117 days may be condoned. 6. The order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has rejected to accept the cause as 'sufficient cause' for a period of 117 days delay in filing of an appeal for assessment year 2016-17 was declined to be condoned. 7. The approach of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) considering condonation of delay has been dealt with as regards the year 2011-12 in W.P.No.14546/2024 observing that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has taken a hyper technical approach. - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:20499 WP No. 14599 of 2024 8. Taking note that as regards the very same assessee in the previous year delay has been condoned, in the present case also the cause as made out in the application would constitute a sufficient ground and if on merits contention of the petitioner is to be upheld, then the order of assessment would be one without jurisdiction and accordingly, the delay ought not come in the way of challenging such order. 9. It is made clear that no view is expressed on merits and all contentions on merit are to be taken note of after remand. However, the reason assigned in the affidavit filed in support of the appeal in the proceedings contending that proceedings are without jurisdiction by itself would constitute a sufficient cause. 10. It is made clear that observations made herein would not come in the way of the authority deciding the matter on its merits including as regards the contention that proceedings stands abated. - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:20499 WP No. 14599 of 2024 11. Accordingly, the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 22.03.2024 at Annexure-'E' is set aside and matter is remitted for fresh consideration as regards the assessment year 2016-17 to be decided. Accordingly, petition is disposed off. All contentions are kept open. Sd/- JUDGE MCR "