UDUPI DISTRICT V. PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP/35905/2019

AI Insights

The case involves the Udupi District Tappers Co-operative Federation Ltd., which filed a writ petition against the orders of the Income Tax authorities concerning the assessment year 2018-19. The petitioner sought to quash the orders that rejected the condonation of delay in filing income tax returns. The High Court of Karnataka referenced a similar case, Balkuru Halu Uthpadakara Sahakari Sangha Limited, where it was held that genuine hardship should be considered in such cases. The court decided to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter for a fresh assessment, emphasizing the need to consider genuine hardships in procedural delays.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 753816 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 15-12-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Balkuru Halu Uthpadakara Sahakari Sangha Limited vs. Prl. Commissioner of Income Tax & others
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: E I SANMATHI
• Assessee Lawyers: MAHESH UPPIN
• Keywords: Assessment year 2018-19; Certiorari; Certiorari; Condonation of delay; Income Tax; Mandamus; Writ petition
• Section: 119(2)(b); 226; 227

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.35905/2019 (T-IT) BETWEEN: UDUPI DISTRICT TAPPERS CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION LTD., R.R. COMPLEX, KUNJAL ROAD, BRAHMAVARA, UDUPI DISTRICT-576213. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY INCHARGE MR. RAVIKARA ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. MAHESH R. UPPIN, ADV.,) AND: 1. PRL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, C.R. BUILDING, N.G. ROAD, ATTAVARA, MANGALURU-575001. 2. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRALIZED PROCEESSING CETRE, BENGALURU-560500. 3. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, ADI-UDUPI MALPE ROAD, UDUPI-576103 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. E.I.SANMATHI, ADV.,) 2 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 31.05.2019 BEARING NO.CPC/1819/A5/1901839096 PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT MARKED AS ANNEXURE-B AND THE ORDER DATED 21.06.2019 BEARING F.NO.149/119(2)(b)/Prl.CIT/MNG/2019-20 PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT MARKED AS ANNEXURE-C AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER 1. In this writ petition, petitioner has sought for the following reliefs: “i) Quash the Order dated 31.05.2019 bearing No.CPC/1819/A5/1901839096 passed by the second Respondent marked as ANNEXURE “B” and the Order dated 21-06-2019 bearing F.No.149/119(2)(b)/Prl.CIT/MNG/2019-20 passed by the first respondent marked as ANNEXURE “C” by issuing a writ in the nature of Certiorari;. ii) Issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing for fresh assessment of the I.T. Return filed by the Petitioner in respect of A.Y. 2018-19 by Respondents 3 in accordance with law and to complete the assessment within a period of two months. iii) grant such other relief as may be deemed fit to grant under the circumstances of the case in the interest of equity and justice.” 3 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the materials on record. 3. The material on record discloses that the issue in controversy involved in the writ petition is directly and squarely covered by the decision of this Court in W.P. No.28871 of 2019 dated 19.09.2019, [Balkuru Halu Uthpadakara Sahakari Sangha Limited vs. Prl. Commissioner of Income Tax & others], which was affirmed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in W.A. No.4011 of 2019 dated 04.01.2021. The Hon’ble Division Bench while dismissing the appeal filed by the respondents-Revenue, held as under: \" The legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.28871/2019, dated 19/09/2019 is called in question in this intra-Court appeal. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that, the respondent herein had filed the writ petition seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari by quashing order dated 17/06/2019, bearing No.158/119(2)(b)/Pr.CIT/MNG/2019-20, passed by respondent No.1 in the writ petition/appellant No.1 herein namely, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangaluru. By the said order, appellant No.1 herein refused to condone the delay and rejected the application filed under Section 4 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for the sake of brevity). Consequently, the delay in filing the return of income for the relevant assessment year (2018-19) was not taken into consideration for being processed. Being aggrieved by the order dated 17/06/2019, appellant No.1 preferred the writ petition. 3. Learned single Judge, who heard the writ petition along with other similar matters, has referred to the decision of the Delhi High Court, passed in Fibrefill Engineers vs. CIT [(2017) 177 TTJ 556 (Del.)], wherein it has been held that on the aspect of delay, genuine hardship would have to be considered before condoning the delay and discretion has to be exercised in genuine cases of hardship and accordingly, exercising his discretion, learned single Judge held that application seeking condonation of delay in filing the returns has to be reconsidered. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the learned single Judge was not right in exercising discretion in favour of the respondent herein. That for the assessment year 2018-19, there was a delay in filing the returns. Therefore, the respondent could not also claim the deduction under Section 80P of the Act. Appellant No.1 herein has rightly rejected the application filed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act, but the learned single Judge has set aside the said order and has remanded the matter to respondent No.3 for re-examination of the said application pertaining to condonation of delay in filing the returns for the assessment year 2018-19. Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that if at all the matter was to be remanded, it ought to have been remanded to appellant No.1 herein, who was respondent No.1 in the writ petition and not to respondent No.3 in the writ petition. 5 Therefore, this appeal would call for interference. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the order impugned in this appeal. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and on perusal of the impugned order of the learned single Judge as well as the order of appellant No.1/respondent No.1 in the writ petition passed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act, we find that the learned single Judge was right in setting aside the said order and remanding the matter. However, while remanding the matter, the same ought to have been remanded to respondent No.1 in the writ petition i.e., appellant No.1 herein. Therefore, with the aforesaid modification of the impugned order, the appeal stands disposed. 7. Since a time frame of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the impugned order was granted by the learned single Judge to complete the reconsideration of the application filed by the respondent herein seeking condonation of delay in filing the returns, we now extend the said time by three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. In view of disposal of the appeal in the aforesaid terms, pending applications, if any, stand disposed. \" 4. In view of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench in W.A. No.4011 of 2019, confirming the order dated 19.09.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.28871 of 2019, I am of the considered opinion that the 6 impugned order dated 21.06.2019 at Annexure ‘C’ passed by respondent No.1-Principal Commissioner of Income Tax deserves to be set aside and the matter remitted back to respondent No.1 for re-consideration afresh in accordance with law. 5. In the result, I pass the following order: ORDER (i) The Writ Petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 21.06.2019 at Annexure ‘C’ passed by respondent No.1 is hereby set aside; (iii) The matter is remitted back to respondent No.1 for reconsideration of the application of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law and bearing in mind the aforesaid order passed by this Court in Balkuru Halu Uthpadakara Sahakari Sangha Limited. WA 4011/2019, Dated: 4/1/2021 referred to Supra. SD/- JUDGE RK CT:AKR "