Sri Venkatesh Gorakshini Trust, V. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)

WP/2516/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Sri Venkatesh Gorakshini Trust, which filed a writ petition against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) and other related respondents, challenging the rejection of their application for condonation of delay in filing Form No. 10B. The delay of four days was during the COVID pandemic, a period when the petitioner was in isolation. The petitioner argued that the delay was minor and adequately explained, citing the extraordinary circumstances of the pandemic. The respondents supported the rejection, emphasizing procedural adherence. The court, after considering the circumstances, decided in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing a lenient approach towards minor delays under extraordinary circumstances.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 752611 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 30-01-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Applicant
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: A RAMAKRISHNA REDDY; K SANJEEV
• Assessee Lawyers: TEJ PRAKASH TOSHNIWAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Covid Pandemic; Digital Submission; Form No. 10B; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 119(2)(b); 226

Judgement Text

" [ 3446 ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT PETITION NO: 2516 OF 2025 Between: AND Sri Venkatesh Gorakshini Trust, Registered Office al 3-2-847, Kachiguda' [vo\"*6io-, i\"preienteo by its managing trustee, Srikishan Badruka S/o Late Sri Hari Prasad G Badruka ...PETITIONER 1. Commissioner of lncome Tax (Exemption)' lncome Tax Department,el^!1o.o1' AivJrii ehavan, opposite L.Ei. Stadium, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad' 500044 (State of Telangana) 2. Assessing Officer, Exemption Circle .'t ('l ), lncome Tax Department, .1s ^Floor' - A;t;k;i 6ha*n,bpposite L.B. Staditini, Basheerbagh, Hvderabad, 500044 (State of Telangana) 3. PrinciDal chief commissioner of lncome Tax (Exemptions), cBDT, IMinistry of - Finanbe, lncome Tax Department, Govt. of lndia, Room No' 149A, North Block, New Delhi.l 10001. 4. The Union of lndia, rep. by its Secretary' MlnisJry of Finance, Depqff.e.{pj- nevenue, Direct Tixe's, dovernment of india, N6rth Block New Delhi-1 10001 . ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to declare the action of the 1't respondent, in passing the rejection order dt.l3lolt2ozsinrejectingthecondonationofdelayof4daysunderSection 119(2Xb) submitted submitted by the petitioner along with Form No 10B application for the assessment year 2O2O-21 is quite contrary to CBDT Circular No.2t2o2Odt.o3.o1.2O2oandCircularNo.16t2o24dated18i1112024and consequently set aside the rejection order dt.13-01-2025,|>y :ondoning the delay of 4 days and direct the 1st respondent to deal with the Forrn IJo.10B submitted on 19-01-2021 for assessment yeat 2O2O-ZOZ1. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circ rmstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the rejection order dt.13tO1l2O2S passed by the 1st respondent for the assessment year 2020-21 under the Act, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI TEJPRAKASH TOSHNIWAL Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: SRI A. RAMAKRISHhIA REDDy, SC FOR INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI K. SANJEEV, SC FOR UNION OF INDIA The Court made the following: ORDER 7/ J i THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHrEF JUSTICE SUJoy PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENT'KA YARA WRTT PETITIO N No.25l6 ot2o25 ORDER (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujog paul) Sri Tejprakash Toshniwal, learned counsel for the peititoner; Sri A. Rama Krishna Reddy, learned Junior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department, for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri K. Sanjeev, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4- Union of India. 2. With the consent, frnally heard. 3. The challenge is mounted to the order dated 13.O1.2025 whereby application for condonation of delay of four days li1ed by the petitioner in filing Form 1OB report was rejected. 4. Criticizing the impugned order dated 13.01.2025, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that little delay of four days was properly explained. The delay, admittedly, occurred during the COVID pandemic period as the petitioner during that period was in isolation. The petitioner's stand was discarded by holding that even if the petitioner was quarantined/isolated during COVID period, nothing prevented it to digitally sign the relevant documents and furnish them to the Department through online. t t rl I I i 2 j! 5. Learned counsel for the other side supporl.ed the impugned order. 6. It is not in dispute that the delay was only for four days and such delay occurred during COVID panderrLic period when the petitioner was in isolation. Thus, learned auth,crity ought to have considered the application leniently but, rather, dealt with it on hyper technical grounds. The impugned ordr:r, declining to condone the delay of mere fou days, cannot withstand judicia,l scrutiny. In our opinion, for condonation of dekr.y of four days, sufficient cause has been shown. Thus, the impugped order dated L3.O1.2O25 is set aside and the proceedings are re store