The Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Santhakaviti, rep by its Chairman, Sri S. Venkataramana Rao and The Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Regidi Amadalavalasa, rep by its Chairman, Sri Vanjarapu Ashok Kumar and The Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Krishnapuram, rep by its Chairman, Sri Gurugubelli Srinivasarao and The Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Kottakota, rep by its Chairman, Sri Kovilapu Chandra Sekhar Rao and The Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Narasannapeta, rep by its Chairman, Sri Ponnana Dhalinaidu and The Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Lakshmi Narasupeta, rep by its Chairman, Sri Kolia Krishna Rao and The Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Ampolu, rep by its Chairman, Sri Krishna Murthy Gondu and The Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Kosamala, rep by its Chairman, Sir Uriana Balaraju and The Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Hirmandalan, rep by its Chairman, Sri A.Venkata Suresh and The Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Kaviti, rep by its Chairman, Sri Devaraju Sahu and The Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Polaki, rep by its Chairman, Sri Karimi Rajeswara Rao and The Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Saravakota, rep by its Chairman, Sri Gellanki Venkat Rao and The Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Tulugu, rep by its Chairman, Sri Koyyana Chinnamnaidu and The Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Pathapatnam, rep by its Chairman, Sir Miryabbelli Shyamsundar Rao and The Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Ponduru, rep by its Chairman, Sri K. Ramanamurthy V. The Union of India, Ministry of Finance, Income Tax Department, New Delhi and The Chief Commissioner, Income Tax Department, Ayakar Bhavan Hyderabad

WP/8278/2024

AI Insights

The case involves multiple writ petitions filed by various Primary Agricultural Cooperative Societies against the Union of India and the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, challenging the rejection of their applications to condone the delay in filing income tax returns for the assessment year 2021-22. The petitions argued that the delays were due to the disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, which were recognized as a calamity under the National Disaster Management Act. The High Court found that the competent authority had not adequately considered the Supreme Court's directions regarding the extension of limitation periods due to the pandemic when rejecting the applications.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 700575 (HC-ANDHRA_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 19-08-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, National Disaster Management Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: Y V ANIL KUMAR; VIJAY KUMAR PUNNA
• Assessee Lawyers: KEDARNATH
• Keywords: Covid-19 impact; Delay Condone; Income Tax; Mandamus; Natural Justice
• Section: 119(2)(b); 226

Judgement Text

"1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO’s: 8011. 8012. 8017, 8018. 8023, 8024, 8031,8032, 8043, 8044. 8056, 8278, 8310. 8313. 8316. 8318, 8320 AND 8322 OF 2024 WRIT PETITION NO: 8011 OF 2024 Between: The Primary Agricultural Cooeprative Society, Santhakaviti, rep by its Chairman, Sri S. Venkataramana Rao S/o Papinaidu, aged 81 years, HonjaramVillage, Santhakaviti(M) Srikakulam District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Union of India, Ministry of Finance, Income Tax Department, New Delhi. 2. The Chief Commissioner, Income Tax Department, Ayakar Bhavan Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order or direction or Writ more particularly in the nature of Mandamus duly declaring the ITBA/COM/F/17/2023-impugne d 2 order dated 21.02.2024 vide 24/1061267477(1), rejecting the delay ' condone petition filed under Section 119(2)(b) of Income Tax Act, as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice as well as against the circular of the first respondent vide F.No. 173/21/2023-ITA-l, dated 26.07.2023, and consequently set aside the same and duly direct the respondents to condone the delay and permit the petitioner to file the returns for the AY 2021-22 in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the impugned order vide ITBA/COM/F/17/2023- 24/1061267477(1), dated 21.02.2024 by direct the respondents to condone the delay and permit the petitioner to file the returns for the by 2021-22 in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI KEDARNATH REP FOR SRI P RAMA SHARANA SHARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI Y V ANIL KUMAR (Central Government Counsel) Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI VIJAY KUMAR PUNNA, SC FOR INCOME TAX WRIT PETITION NO: 8012 OF 2024 Between: The Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Regidi Amadalavalasa, rep by its Chairman, Sri Vanjarapu Ashok Kumar, S/o Venkata Swamy, aged 63 years, 1-234, Kandisa Village, Rigid! (M), Srikakulam District. ...PETITIONER 3 AND 1. The Union of India, Ministry of Finance, Income Tax Department, New Delhi. 2. The Chief Commissioner, Income Tax Department, Ayakar Bhavan Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order or direction or Writ more particularly in the nature of Mandamus duly declaring the impugned ITBA/COM/F/17/202 3- videdated 21.02.2024 24/1061265693(1), rejecting the delay condone petition filed under Section 119(2)(b) of Income Tax Act, as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice as well as against the circular of the first respondent vide F.No. 173/21/2023-ITA-l, dated 26.07.2023, and consequently set aside the same and duly direct the respondents to condone the delay and permit the petitioner to file the returns for the AY 2021-22 in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the impugned order vide ITBA/COM/F/17/2023- 24/1061265693(1), dated 21.02.2024 by direct the respondents to condone the delay and permit the petitioner to file the returns for the AY 2021-22 in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI KEDARNATH REP FOR SRI P RAMA SHARANA SHARMA 4 Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI Y V ANIL KUMAR (Central Government Counsel) Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI VIJAY KUMAR PUNNA, SC FOR INCOME TAX WRIT PETITION NO: 8017 OF 2024 Between: The Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Krishnapuram, rep by its Chairman, Sri Gurugubelli Srinivasarao, S/o Krishna Rao, aged 55 years, Cheemalavalasa Village, Amudalavalasa (M) Srikakulam District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Union of India, Ministry of Finance, Income Tax Department, New Delhi. 2. The Chief Commissioner, Income Tax Department, Ayakar Bhavan, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order or direction or Writ more particularly in the nature of Mandamus duly declaring the impugned order dated 21.02.2024 vide ITBA/COM/F/17/2023- 24/1061267755(1), rejecting the delay condone petition filed under Section 119(2)(b) of Income Tax Act, as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice as well as against the circular of the first respondent vide F.No. 173/21/2023-ITA-l, dated 26.07.2023, and consequently set aside the same and duly direct the respondents to condone 5 the delay and permit the petitioner to file the returns for the AY 2021-22 in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the impugned order vide ITBA/COM/F/17/2023- 24/1061267755(1), dated 21.02.2024 by direct the respondents to condone the delay and permit the petitioner to file the returns for the AY 2021-22 in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI KEDARNATH REP FOR SRI P RAMA SHARANA SHARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI Y V ANIL KUMAR (Central Government Counsel) Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI VIJAY KUMAR PUNNA, SC FOR INCOME TAX WRIT PETITION NO: 8018 OF 2024 Between: The Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Kottakota, rep by its Chairman, Sri Kovilapu Chandra Sekhar Rao, S/o Laxmi Narayana, aged 44 years, 1-24, Shalantri Village, Sarubujjili (M), Srikakulam District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Union of India, Ministry of Finance, Income Tax Department, New Delhi. 6 2. The Chief Commissioner, Income Tax Department, Ayakar Bhavan, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order or direction or Writ more particularly in the nature of Mandamus duly declaring the impugned order datedi9-12-2023 vide ITBA/COM/F/17/2023-24/1058875410(1), rejecting the delay condone petition filed under Section 119(2)(b) of Income Tax Act, as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice as well as against the circular of the first respondent vide F.No. 173/21/2023-ITA-l, dated 26.07.2023, and consequently set aside the same and duly direct the respondents to condone the delay and permit the petitioner to file the returns for the AY 2021-22 in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the impugned order vide ITBA/COM/F/17/2023- 24/1058875410(1) dated 19-12-2023 by direct the respondents to condone the delay and permit the petitioner to file the returns for the AY 2021-22 in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI KEDARNATH REP FOR SRI P RAMA SHARANA SHARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI Y V ANIL KUMAR (Central Government Counsel) Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI VIJAY KUMAR PUNNA, SC FOR INCOME TAX 7 WRIT PETITION NO: 8023 OF 2024 Between: The Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, rep by its Chairman, Sri Gellanki Ramesh Babu S/o Adinarayana, aged 40 years, Ananthagiri Village, Bhamini (M) Srikakulam District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Union of India, Ministry of Finance, Income Tax Department, New Delhi. 2. The Chief Commissioner, Income Tax Department, Ayakar Bhavan Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order or direction or Writ more particularly in the nature of Mandamus duly declaring the impugned order dated 19.12.2023 vide ITBA/COM/F/17/2023-24/105887225(1), rejecting the delay condone petition filed under Section 119(2)(b) of Income Tax Act, as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice as well as against the circular of the first respondent vide F.No. 173/21/2023-ITA-l, dated 26.07.2023, and consequently set aside the same and duly direct the respondents to condone the delay and permit the petitioner to file the returns for the AY 2021-22 in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be 8 pleased to set aside the impugned order vide ITBA/COM/F/17/2023- ' 24/105887225(1), dated 19.12.2023 by direct the respondents to condone the delay and permit the petitioner to file the returns for the AY 2021-22 in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI KEDARNATH REP FOR SRI P RAMA SHARANA SHARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI Y V ANIL KUMAR (Central Government Counsel) Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI VIJAY KUMAR PUNNA, SC FOR INCOME TAX WRIT PETITION NO: 8024 OF 2024 Between: The Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Narasannapeta, rep by its Chairman, Sri Ponnana Dhalinaidu, S/o Apparao, aged 59 years, Borigivalasa Village, Narsannapeta (M), Srikakulam District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Union of India, Ministry of Finance, Income Tax Department, New Delhi. 2. The Chief Commissioner, Income Tax Department, Ayakar Bhavan Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order or direction or Writ more particularly in the 9 nature of Mandamus duly declaring the impugned order dated 21.02.2024 vide ITBA/COM/F/17/2023-24/1061266605(1), rejecting the delay condone petition filed under Section 119(2)(b) of Income Tax Act, as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice as well as against the circular of the first respondent vide F.No. 173/21/2023-ITA-l, dated 26.07.2023, and consequently set aside the same and duly direct the respondents to condone the delay and permit the petitioner to file the returns for the AY 2021-22 in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the Fligh Court may be pleased to set aside the impugned order vide ITBA/COM/F/17/2023- 24/1061266605(1), 21.02.2024 by direct the respondents to condone the delay and permit the petitioner to file the returns for the AY 2021-22 in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI KEDARNATH REP FOR SRI P RAMA SHARANA SHARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI Y V ANIL KUMAR (Central Government Counsel) Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI VIJAY KUMAR PUNNA, SC FOR INCOME TAX WRIT PETITION NO: 8031 OF 2024 Between: The Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Lakshmi Narasupeta, rep by its Chairman, Sri Kolia Krishna Rao S/o Late Thammanna, aged 58 years, Donkalabadavanja Village, L.N.Peta (M) Srikakulam District. 10 ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Union of India, Ministry of Finance, Income Tax Department, New Delhi. 2. The Chief Commissioner, Income Tax Department, Ayakar Bhavan Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order or direction or Writ more particularly in the nature of Mandamus duly declaring the impugned order dated 21.02.2024 vide ITBA/COM/F/17/2023-24/1061252195(1) rejecting the delay condone petition filed under Section 119(2)(b) of Income Tax Act, as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice as well as against the circular of the first respondent vide F.No. 173/21/2023-ITA-l, dated 26.07.2023, and consequently set aside the same and duly direct the respondents to condone the delay and permit the petitioner to file the returns for the AY 2021-22 in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the impugned order vide ITBA/COM/F/17/2023- 24/1061252195(1) dated 21-02-2024 by direct the respondents to condone the delay and permit the petitioner to file the returns for the AY 2021-22 in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petltioner(s): SRI KEDARNATH REP FOR SRI P RAMA SHARANA SHARMA 11 Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI Y V ANIL KUMAR (Central Government Counsel) Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI VIJAY KUMAR PUNNA, SC FOR INCOME TAX WRIT PETITION NO: 8032 OF 2024 Between: The Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Ampolu, rep by its Chairman, Sri Krishna Murthy Gondu, S/o Late Narsing Rao, aged 65 years, S.No. 905/1, Ampolu Village, Gara (M), Srikakulam District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Union of India, Ministry of Finance Income Tax Department, New Delhi. 2. The Chief Commissioner, Income Tax Department, Ayakar Bhavan, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order or direction or Writ more particularly in the nature of Mandamus duly declaring the impugned order dated 21.02.2024 vide ITBA/COM/F/17/2023- 24/1061264535(1), rejecting the delay condone petition filed under Section 119(2)(b) of Income Tax Act, as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice as well as against the circular of the first respondent vide F.No. as 173/21/2023-ITA-l, dated 26.07.2023, and consequently set aside the same and duly direct the respondents to condone 12 the delay and permit the petitioner to file the returns for the AY 2021-22 in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the impugned order vide ITBA/COM/F/17/2023- 24/1061264535(1), dated 21.02.2024 by direct the respondents to condone the delay and permit the petitioner to file the returns for the AY 2021-22 in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI KEDARNATH REP FOR SRI P RAMA SHARANA SHARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI Y V ANIL KUMAR (Central Government Counsel) Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI VIJAY KUMAR PUNNA, SC FOR INCOME TAX WRIT PETITION NO: 8043 OF 2024 Between: The Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Kosamala, rep by its Chairman, Sir Uriana Balaraju, S/o Krishna Murthy, aged 70 years Kosamala Village, Meliyaputti (M), Srikakulam District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Union of India, Ministry of Finance, Income Tax Department, New Delhi. 13 2. The Chief Commissioner, Income Tax Department, Ayakar Bhavan Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order or direction or Writ more particularly in the nature of Mandamus duly declaring the impugned order dated 21.02.2024 vide ITBA/COM/F/17/2023-24/1061251589(1) rejecting the delay condone petition filed under Section 119(2)(b) of Income Tax Act, as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice as well as against the circular of the first respondent vide F.No. 173/21/2023-ITA-l, dated 26.07.2023, and consequently set aside the same and duly direct the respondents to condone the delay and permit the petitioner to file the returns for the AY 2021-22 in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the impugned order vide ITBA/COM/F/ 17/2023-24/ 1061251589 (1), dated 21.02.2024 by direct the respondents to condone the delay and permit the petitioner to file the returns for the AY 2021-22 in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI KEDARNATH REP FOR SRI P RAMA SHARANA SHARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI Y V ANIL KUMAR (Central Government Counsel) Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI VIJAY KUMAR PUNNA, SC FOR INCOME TAX 14 WRIT PETITION NO: 8044 OF 2024 Between: The Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Hirmandalan, rep by its Chairman, Sri A.Venkata Suresh, S/o Late Mohan Rao, aged 53 years, Hirmandalan Village, Srikakulam District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Union of India, Ministry of Finance Income Tax Department,New Delhi. 2. The Chief Commissioner, Income Tax Department, Ayakar Bhavan, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order or direction or Writ more particularly in the nature of Mandamus duly declaring the impugned order dated 19.12.2023 vide ITBA/COM/F/17/2023-24/1058876335(1), rejecting the delay condone petition filed under Section 119(2)(b) of Income Tax Act, as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice as well as against the circular of the first respondent vide F.No. 173/21/2023-ITA-l, dated 26.07.2023, and consequently set aside the same and duly direct the respondents to condone the delay and permit the petitioner to file the returns for the AY 2021-22 in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be 15 pleased to set aside the impugned order vide ITBA/COM/F/17/2023- 24/1058876335(1), dated 19.12.2023 and direct the respondents to condone the delay and permit the petitioner to file the returns for the AY 2021-22 in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI KEDARNATH REP FOR SRI P RAMA SHARANA SHARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI Y V ANIL KUMAR (Central Government Counsel) Counsel for the Respondent No.2 ; SRI VIJAY KUMAR PUNNA, SC FOR INCOME TAX WRIT PETITION NO: 8056 OF 2024 Between: The Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Kaviti, rep by its Chairman, Sri Devaraju Sahu S/o Late Jhodi Sahu, aged 46 years, Manikyapuram Village, Kaviti (M) Srikakulam District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Union of India, Ministry of Finance Income Tax Department, New Delhi. I 2. The Chief Commissioner, Income Tax Department, Ayakar Bhavan Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order or direction or Writ more particularly in the 16 nature of Mandamus duly declaring the impugned order dated 19.12.2023 vide ITBA/COM/F/17/2023-24/1058876553(1), rejecting the delay condone petition filed under Section 119(2)(b) of Income Tax Act, as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice as well as against the circular of the first respondent vide F.No. 173/21/2023-ITA-l, dated 26.07.2023, and consequently set aside the same and duly direct the respondents to condone the delay and permit the petitioner to file the returns for the AY 2021-22 in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the impugned order vide ITBA/COM/F/17/2023- 24/1058876553(1), dated 19.12.2023 by direct the respondents to condone the delay and permit the petitioner to file the returns for the AY 2021-22 in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI KEDARNATH REP FOR SRI P RAMA SHARANA SHARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI Y V ANIL KUMAR (Central Government Counsel) Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI VIJAY KUMAR PUNNA, SC FOR INCOME TAX WRIT PETITION NO: 8278 OF 2024 Between: The Primary Agriculutral Cooperative Society, Polaki, rep by its Chairman, Sri Karimi Rajeswara Rao, S/o Appalasuryanarayana, aged 58 years, Veduralavalasa Village, Polaki (M), Srikakulam District. 17 ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Union of India, Ministry of Finance, Income Tax Department, New Delhi. 2. The Chief Commissioner, Income Tax Department, Ayakar Bhavan Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order or direction Writ more particularly in the nature of Mandamus duly declaring the impugned order dated 19.12.2023 vide ITBA/COM/F/17/2023-24/1058876971(1), rejecting the delay condone petition filed under Section 119(2)(b) of Income Tax Act, as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice as well as against the circular of the first respondent vide F.No. 173/21/2023-ITA-l, dated 26.07.2023, and consequently set aside the same and duly direct the respondents to condone the delay and permit the petitioner to file the returns for the AY 2021-22 in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the impugned order vide ITBA/COM/F/17/2023-24/ 1058876971(1), dated 19.12.2023 by direct the respondents to condone the delay and permit the petitioner to file the returns for the AY 2021-22 in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI KEDARNATH REP FOR SRI P RAMA SHARANA SHARMA 18 Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI Y V ANIL KUMAR (Central Government Counsel) Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI VIJAY KUMAR PUNNA, SC FOR INCOME TAX WRIT PETITION NO: 8310 OF 2024 Between: The Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Saravakota, rep by its Chairman, Sri Gellanki Venkat Rao, S/o Late Savaranaidu, aged 65 years, Vandrayi Village, Saravakota (M), Srikakulam District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Union of India, Ministry of Finance, Income Tax Department, New Delhi. 2. The Chief Commissioner, Income Tax Department, Ayakar Bhavan Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order or direction or Writ more particularly in the nature of Mandamus duly declaring the impugned order dated 21.02.2024 vide ITBA/COM/F/17/2023-24/1061266149(1), rejecting the delay condone petition filed under Section 119(2)(b) of Income Tax Act, as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice as well as against the circular of the first respondent vide F.No.173/21/2023-ITA-l, dated 26.07.2023, and consequently set aside the same and duly direct the respondents to condone 19 the delay and permit the petitioner to file the returns for the AY 2021-22 in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the impugned order vide ITBA/COM/F/17/2023- 24/1061266149(1) dated 21.02.2024 by direct the respondents to condone the delay and permit the petitioner to file the returns for the AY 2021-22 in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI KEDARNATH REP FOR SRI P RAMA SHARANA SHARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI Y V ANIL KUMAR (Central Government Counsel) Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI VIJAY KUMAR PUNNA, SC FOR INCOME TAX WRIT PETITION NO: 8313 OF 2024 Between: The Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, G.Sigadam, rep by its Chairman, Sri Yernena Prakasharao, S/o Late Appalanaidu aged 62 years, Niddam Village, G.Sigdam (M), Srikakulam. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Union of India, Ministry of Finance, Income Tax Department, New Delhi. 20 2. The Chief Commissioner, Income Tax Department, Ayakar Bhavan, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order or direction or Writ more particularly in the nature of Mandamus duly declaring the impugned order dated 19.12.2023 vide ITBA/COM/F/17/2023-24/1058875489(1), rejecting the delay condone petition filed under Section 119(2)(b) of Income Tax Act, as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice as well as against the circular of the first respondent vide F.No.173/21/2023-ITA-l, dated 26.07.2023, and consequently set aside the same and duly direct the respondentsto condone the delay and permit the petitioner to file the returns for the AY 2018-19 & 2021-22 in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the impugned order vide ITBA/COM/F/17/2023- 24/1058875489(1), dated 19-12-2023 by direct the respondents lo condone the delay and permit the petitioner to file the returns for the AY 2018-19 & 2021-22 in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner{s): SRI KEDARNATH REP FOR SRI P RAMA SHARANA SHARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI Y V ANIL KUMAR (Central Government Counsel) Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI VIJAY KUMAR PUNNA, SC FOR INCOME TAX 21 WRIT PETITION NO: 8316 OF 2024 Between: The Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Tulugu, rep by its Chairman, Sri Koyyana Chinnamnaidu, S/o Chinnakurmayya, aged 56 years, Koyyannapeta Village, Gara (M), Srikakulam District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Union of India, Rep by Its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Income Tax Department, New Delhi. 2. The Chief Commissioner, Income Tax Department, Ayakar Bhavan, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order or direction or Writ more particularly in the nature of Mandamus duly declaring the impugned order dated 21.02.2024 vide ITBA/COM/F/17/2023-24/1061246540(1), rejecting the delay condone petition filed under Section 119(2)(b) of Income Tax Act, as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice as well as against the circular of the first respondent vide F.No. 173/21/2023-ITA-l, dated 26.07.2023, and consequently set aside the same and duly direct the respondents to condone the delay and permit the petitioner to file the returns for the AY 2021-22 in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be 22 pleased to set aside the impugned order vide ITBA/COM/F/17/2023- 24/1061246540(1), dated 21.02.2024 by direct the respondents to condone the delay and permit the petitioner to file the returns for the AY 2021-22 in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI KEDARNATH REP FOR SRI P RAMA SHARANA SHARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI Y V ANIL KUMAR (Central Government Counsel) Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI VIJAY KUMAR PUNNA, SC FOR INCOME TAX WRIT PETITION NO: 8318 OF 2024 Between: The Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Pathapatnam, rep by its Chairman, Sir Miryabbelli Shyamsundar Rao, S/o Appanna, aged 59 years, Romadals Village, Pathapatnam (M), Srikakulam District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Union of India, Ministry of Finance, Income Tax Department, New Delhi. 2. The Chief Commissioner, Income Tax Department, Ayakar Bhavan, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order or direction or Writ more particularly in the 23 nature of Mandamus duly declaring the impugned order dated 21.02.2024 vide ITBA/COM/F/17/2023-24/1061269053(1), rejecting the delay condone petition filed under Section 119(2)(b) of Income Tax Act, as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice as well as against the circular of the first respondent vide F.No. 173/21/2023-ITA-l, dated 26.07.2023, and consequently set aside the same and duly direct the respondents to condone the delay and permit the petitioner to file the returns for the AY 2021-22 in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the impugned order vide ITBA/COM/F/17/2023- 24/1061269053(1), dated 21.02.2024 by direct the respondents to condone the delay and permit the petitioner to file the returns for the AY 2021-22 in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI KEDARNATH REP FOR SRI P RAMA SHARANA SHARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI Y V ANIL KUMAR (Central Government Counsel) Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI VIJAY KUMAR PUNNA, SC FOR INCOME TAX WRIT PETITION NO: 8320 OF 2024 Between: The Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Arasavalli, rep by its Chairman, Sri Gondu Krishna Murthy S/o Late Asiranna, aged 63 years, Voppangi Village, Sanivada (M) Srikakulam District. 24 ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Union of India, Ministry of Finance, Income Tax Department, New Delhi. 2. The Chief Commissioner, Income Tax Department, Ayakar Bhavan, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order or direction or Writ more particularly in the nature of Mandamus duly declaring the impugned order dated 19.12.2023 vide ITBA/COM/F/17/2023-24/1058877186(1), rejecting the delay condone petition filed under Section 119(2)(b) of Income Tax Act, as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice as well as against the circular of the first respondent vide F.No. 173/21/2023-ITA-l, dated 26.07.2023, and consequently set aside the same and duly direct the respondentsto condone the delay and permit the petitioner to file the returns for the AY 2021-22 in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the impugned order vide ITBA/COM/F/17/2023- 24/ 1058877186(1), dated 19.12.2023 and direct the respondents to condone the delay and permit the petitioner to file the returns for the AY 2021-22 in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI KEDARNATH REP FOR SRI P RAMA SHARANA SHARMA 25 Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI Y V ANIL KUMAR (Central GovernmentCounsel) Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI VIJAY KUMAR PUNNA, SC FOR INCOME TAX WRIT PETITION NO: 8322 OF 2024 Between: The Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Ponduru, rep by its Chairman, Sri K. Ramanamurthy S/o Lakshmaiah, aged 68 years, Rapaka Village, Ponduru (M) Srikakulam District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Union of India, Ministry of Finance, Income Tax Department, New Delhi. 2. The Chief Commissioner, Income Tax Department, Ayakar Bhavan, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order or direction or Writ more particularly in the nature of Mandamus duly declaring the impugned order dated 19.12.2023 vide ITBA/COM/F/17/2023-24/1058875551(1), rejecting the delay condone petition filed under Section 119(2)(b) of Income Tax Act, as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice as well as against the circular of the first respondent vide F.No. 173/21/2023-ITA-l, dated 26.07.2023, and consequently set aside the same and duly direct the respondents to condone 26 the delay and permit the petitioner to file the returns for the AY 2021-22 in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the impugned order vide ITBA/COM/F/17/2023- 24/1058875551(1), dated 19.12.2023 by direct the respondents to condone the delay and permit the petitioner to file the returns for the AY 2021-22 in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitloner(s): SRI KEDARNATH REP FOR SRI P RAMA SHARANA SHARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI Y V ANIL KUMAR (Central Government Counsel) Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI VIJAY KUMAR PUNNA, SC FOR INCOME TAX The Court made the following : COMMON ORDER APHC010154332024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3487] MONDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NOs: 8011, 8012. 8017, 8018. 8023, 8024, 8031. 8032. 8043. 8044, 8056, 8278, 8310, 8313, 8316, 8318. 8320 & 8322/2024 Between: The Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society AND ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) The Union of India and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1 .P RAMA SHARANA SHARMA Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1.VIJAY KUMAR PUNNA 2.Y V ANIL KUMAR (Central Government Counsel) The Court made the following common order: G.NARENDAR. J: Heard learned counsel, Sri Kedarnath, representing on behalf of learned counsel Sri P.Rama Sharana Sharma representing the learned counsel for appellants, Sri Y.V.Anil 2 Kumar, learned Central Government Counsel, representing for the 1®' respondent and Sri Vijay Kumar Punna, learned Central Government standing counsel representing for the 2^^ respondent. The short point that arises in all the petitions is that whether the authority was right in rejecting the applications preferred under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act seeking to condone the delay in filing the returns for the assessment year 2021-2022. We have perused the order passed by the competent authority on the applications. The applications by the assesse were preferred invoking the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section 2 of section 119 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, praying to condone the delay in the filing of returns for the assessment year 2021-2022 and thereby, enabling them to claim deduction under Section SOP of 2. the Act. 3. The status of petitioners’ society is not disputed. The petitioners’ society are all Primarily Agricultural Cooperative Societies (PACS) registered under the Cooperative Societies Act and are engaged in the business of extending financial assistance ,^*(loans) to its members. The fact that the society is 3 part of the credit cooperative structure and extends financial assistance only to its members is a fact that can be prima facie inferred from the pleadings. The case of the petitioners is that during the period from 4. around January, 2020 and there onwards, the presence of corona virus came to be detected in the country and a notification came to be issued in March, 2020 by the competent authority under National Disaster Management Act whereby the rampaging corona virus was declared as a calamity and orders came to be issued, drastically regulating daily life of the citizens whereby citizens were even prohibited from venturing out doors. It is also not in dispute that the prohibition continued to be in operation till the end of the year 2020 and 2021 also and it is common knowledge that the virus startedwithering in the fourth quarter of 2021. The fact that normal life was completely disrupted and thrown out of gear needs no reiteration. In fact, that said aspect of the matter came to be taken up by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020. The Hon’ble Apex Court acknowledging the circumstances and the statutory requirement. 5. 4 severely curtailing moment of men and material and also curtailmentof modes of transportation more especially public transports and addressing the unique situation of limitation pleased to issue orders/directions whereby the limitations under the various Acts, Statutes, Rules etc., came to be extended from time to time and the last such order came to be passed on 10.01.2022, which reads as under: severe was 1. In March, 2020, this Court took Suo Motu cognizance of the difficulties that might be faced by the litigants in filing petitions/applications/suits/ appeals/ all other quasi proceedings within the period of limitation prescribed under the general law of limitation or under any special laws (both Central and/or State) due to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. 2. On 23.03.2020, this Court directed extension of the period of limitation in all proceedings before Courts/Tribunals including this Court w.e.f.15.03.2020 till further orders. On 08.03.2021, the order dated 23.03.2020 was brought to an end, permitting the relaxation of period of limitation between 15.03.2020 and 14.03.2021. While doing so, it was made clear that the period of limitation would start from 15.03.2021. 3. Thereafter, due to a second surge in COVID-19 cases, . '^the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association V- 5 (SCAORA) intervened in the Sue Motu proceedings by filing Miscellaneous Application No. 665 of 2021 seeking restoration of the order dated 23.03.2020 relaxing limitation. The aforesaid Miscellaneous Application No.665 of 2021 was disposed of by this Court vide Order dated 23.09.2021, wherein this Court extended the period of limitation in all proceedings before the Courts/Tribunals including this Court w.e.f. 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021. 4. The present Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association in the context of the spread of the new variant of the COVID- 19 and the drastic surge in the number of COVID cases across the country.Considering the prevailing conditions, the applicants are seekingthe following: i. allow the present application by restoring the order dated 23.03.2020 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) NO. 3 of 2020; and ii. allow the present application by restoring the order dated 27.04.2021 passed by this Hon'ble Court in M.A. no. 665 of 2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) NO. 3 of 2020; and iii. pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. 5. Taking into consideration the arguments advanced by learned counsel and the impact of the surge of the virus on public health and adversities faced by litigants in the 6 prevailing conditions, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the M.A. No. 21 of 2022 with the following directions: I. The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi- judicial proceedings. II.Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 03.10.2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 01.03.2022. it is or III. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. IV. It is further clarified that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23(4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 7 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.” On a reading of Paras 5(1), it is apparent that the earlier orders came to be restored and further directed that the period 6. between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws. In para 5(111), the limitation that stood expired between the period 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 was extended by a period of 90 days commencing from 01.03.2022. Thus, it can be safely inferred that the Hon’ble Apex Court taking suomotu cognizance of the effect and impact of the covid-19 has extended the limitations for a period of 90 days effective from 01.03.2022. Apparently, the applications have been preferred much prior to the cut-off date as recognized under the above order. We have perused the order impugned i.e., order dated 21.02.2024. On a reading of Para 6, it is apparent that the competent authority has been pleased to look into the board circular No.17/2021 issued on 09.09.2021 and has passed the 7. order impugned. Apparently, the Circular No.17/2021, dated 09.09.2021, has extended the time limit till of March, 2022. On the said premise and following the circular, the competent authority has rightly passed the order rejecting the application. Though the competent authority cannot be faulted for having followed the circular, yet, in our considered opinion, the competent authority ought to have also looked into the order of the Apex Court dated 10.01.2022 rendered in Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2022 in Miscellaneous Application No.665 of 2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020. Apparently, the order of the Apex Court has been passed after the issuance of the Circular No.17/2021 on 09.09.2021. 8. In that view, we are of the considered opinion that the orders impugned warrant interference and ought to be set aside and matters be remitted back to the competent authority to reconsider the applications in the light of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court while considering and disposing of M.A. No.21 of 2022 in M.A. No.665 of 2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020, dated 10.01.2022. It is needless to say that the directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court are a binding precedent and constitutes the law of the land. 9 Learned standing counsel for the respondent has made an 9. attempt to convince us otherwise. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the orders passed by the Division Benches of Delhi Kerala, Gujarath and Bombay. The orders of the Delhi High Court and Kerala High Court are respectively dated 12.03.2018 Be that as it may, the assessment orders and 14.03.2023. involved therein relate to 2006-07 and 2009-10 and2010-11 respectively. We are of the opinion that the said rulings do not relate to the covid period and hence, are of no assistance to the revenue. Insofar as the rulings of the High Court of Bombay and the High Court of Gujarat, we have noted that both the judgments have been rendered much prior to the orders passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The Bombay High Court hds disposed of the matter on 15.01.2021 and did not have the benefit of the circular dated 09.09.2021 or the directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in M.A. No.21 of 2022 in M.A. No.665 of 2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020, dated 10.01.2022. The judgment of the Gujarath High Court is dated 13.01.2021. Yet again as noted supra, the Hon’ble High Court did not have the benefit of either the circular dated 09.09.2021 or the directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court dated 10.01.2022. Be that as it may, it is 10 also of interest to note the direction of the Division Bench to take lenient view with regard to the consequences of late filing of tax audit reports. The direction-cum- recommendation in Para 51 reads as under: In the result, both the writ applications fail and are hereby rejected. 51. At this stage, we may only observe that the CBDT may consider issuing appropriate circular taking a lenient view as regards the an consequences of late filing of the Tax Audit Reports as provided under section 271B of the Act. We leave it to the better discretion of the CBDT in this regard.” 10. Thus, it is worthy to note that the Division Bench was alive to the situations that may arise and hence, it cannot be stated that the Court was completely oblivious to the sufferings of the common man. Be that as it may, the fact remains that both the judgments rendered by the High Court of Gujarath and High Court of Bombay, were passed almost a year prior to the direction of the Hon’ble Apex Court dated 10.01.2022. objections in our opinion do not bea' its consideration. Hence, the 11. In that view, these writ petitions are allowed in part and that the impugned orders dated 21.02.2024 are set aside and remitted back to the authority for reconsideration of the applications 11 preferred under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the light of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in M.A. No.21 of 2022 in M.A. No.665 of 2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020, dated 10.01.2022. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in this case shall stand closed. r { SDI- G. HELA NAIDU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 1 //TRUE COPY// '/ SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Union of India, Ministry of Finance, Income Tax Department,New Delhi. 2. The Chief Commissioner, Income Tax Department, Ayakar Bhavan, Hyderabad. 3. One CC to SRI P RAMA SHARANA SHARMA Advocate [OPUC 4. One CC to SRI Y V ANIL KUMAR (Central Government Counsel) [OPUC] 5. One CC to SRI VIJAY KUMAR PUNNA, SC for INCOME TAX [OPUC] 6. Three CD Copies Madhu . 28 HIGH COURT DATED:19/08/2024 COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.8011, 8012, 8017, 8018, 8023, 8024, 8031 8032, 8043, 8044, 8056, 8278, 8310, 8313, 8316, 8318 8320 AND 8322 of 2024 I 2 7 SEP 20711 ^ . Current Section . ^ PARTLY ALLOWING ALL WP’s WITHOUT COSTS "