Sumant Chengappa V. Income Tax Officer ITO Ward, Madikeri and The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore-3 and Deputy/Assistant Director of Income Tax, Investigation-2, Bangalore

WP/37274/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Sumant Chengappa, a non-resident Indian, who filed a writ petition against the Income Tax Department officials, challenging the rejection of his application for condonation of delay in filing revised income tax returns for the assessment year 2018-19. The petitioner argued that the delay was due to bona fide reasons and unavoidable circumstances, as he was not in India and faced genuine hardship. The respondents supported the rejection of the application, emphasizing the lack of merit in the petition. The court found that the respondents had adopted a hyper-technical approach and failed to appreciate the genuine hardship faced by the petitioner, leading to the decision to set aside the impugned order and allow the petitioner's application.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 822383 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 10-12-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: M THIRUMALESH
• Assessee Lawyers: RAVI SHANKAR V
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Non-Resident Indian; Revised return of income; Writ of Certiorari; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 119(2)(b)

Judgement Text

" - 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52216 WP No. 37274 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 37274 OF 2025 (T-IT) BETWEEN: SUMANT CHENGAPPA AGED 61 YEARS, S/O M B CHEGAPPA, CARE- HONEY FARM, SIDAPUR, SOUTH COORG, KODAGU- 571253. PAN: AAKPC8066C …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVI SHANKAR S V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. INCOME TAX OFFICER ITO WARD, MADIKERI- 571201. 2. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE-3, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE- 560095. 3. DEPUTY/ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, INVESTIGATION-2, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY/ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, INVESTIGATION-2, FAIU, BANGALORE- 560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.THIRUMALESH., ADVOCATE) Printed from counselvise.com Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52216 WP No. 37274 of 2025 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 119(2)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT) DATED 20/09/2023 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN DIN NO ITBA/COM/F/17/2023- 24/1056316684(1) ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19 (ANNEXURE- A)., AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 1. In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs; 1) Issue a writ of certiorari or a direction in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the order under section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') dated 20/09/2023 passed by the Respondent No.2 in DIN No: ITBA/COM/F/17/2023- 24/1056316684(1) assessment year 2018-19 (Annexure-A). for the ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or a direction in the nature of writ of mandamus directing to the respondents condone the delay in filing the revised return of income for the assessment year 2018-19 and to permit the petitioner to file a revised return of income, in accordance with law. iii) And pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity. Printed from counselvise.com - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52216 WP No. 37274 of 2025 2. A perusal of the material on record would indicate that the petitioner did not file his revised income tax returns within the due date and subsequently, paid the income tax in terms of the revised returns and thereafter filed the application under Section 192(b) seeking codonation of delay in filing the revised returns. The said application having been rejected by the respondent vide order at Annexure-A dated 20.09.2023, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. 3. It is contended that the delay in filing the revised income tax returns was on account of bonafide reasons unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause and the petitioner being a non resident Indian was not in Indian and could not file the revised returns before the due date and it was due to genuine hardship as contemplated in the Circular No.9/2015 dated 09.06.2015 and as such, the impugned order passed by the respondent rejecting the application deserves to be set-aside and application for Printed from counselvise.com - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52216 WP No. 37274 of 2025 codonation of delay filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned order and submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the respondents have adopted hyper technical approach in refusing to condone the delay without appreciating that the inability and omission on the part of the petitioner to file the revised returns within the prescribed period was on account of the undisputed fact that the petitioner was none resident Indian (NRI) and the same owing to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause clearly constituted genuine hardship on the part of the petitioner / assessee as contemplated in the said circular dated 09.06.2015 and failure to appreciate this has resulted in erroneous conclusion Printed from counselvise.com - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52216 WP No. 37274 of 2025 warranting interference by this Court in the present petition. 6. Under these circumstances, I deem it just and appropriate to adopt the justice oriented approach and having regard to the validity of sufficient ground pleaded by the petitioner in support of his claim for condonation of delay, I deem it just and appropriate to set-aside the impugned order and condone the delay in filing the revised returns by the petitioner by allowing the application filed by the petitioner. In the result, the following; ORDER (i) The petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned order at Annexure - A dated 20.09.2023 is hereby set-aside. (iii) The application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2b) for condonation of delay in filing Printed from counselvise.com - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52216 WP No. 37274 of 2025 the revised income tax returns for the assessment year 2018-19 is hereby allowed. (iv) The respondents are directed to accept the revised return submitted by the petitioner and verify the claim of the petitioner and proceed further in accordance with law. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE GH List No.: 2 Sl No.: 19 Printed from counselvise.com "