Vasavi Foundation For Empowerment V. The Commissioner of Income Tax

WP/35977/2024

AI Insights

The case involves the Vasavi Foundation for Empowerment, represented by its director, Sri Srinivas Gowrd, who filed a writ petition against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) and other respondents. The petition challenged the order dated 28.11.2024, which dismissed the petitioner's application for condonation of a 58-day delay in filing Form 10. The petitioner argued that the order was arbitrary, mechanical, and lacked reasoning, thus violating Articles 19(1)(g) and 265 of the Constitution of India and the Income Tax Act. The court found that the impugned order did not adequately address the reasons provided by the petitioner for the delay, leading to its decision to set aside the order and remand the matter for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 690501 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 31-12-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Kranthi Associates Private Limited vs. Masood Ahmed Khan (2010) 9 SCC 496
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Applicant
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: A REDDY; P KRISHNA
• Assessee Lawyers: K PRABHABATI
• Keywords: Application of mind; Arbitrary; Condonation of delay; Income Tax; Mechanical; Perverse; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 119(2)(b); 265; 19(1)(g)

Judgement Text

"[ 3430 I HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEIVIBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI WRIT PETITION NO: 35977 OF 2024 Between: AND Vasavi Foundation For Empowerment, 7-1-618, No. 9, 8th Floor, Aditya Trade Centre, Ameerpet, Hyderabad-500038, Telangana rep. By its Director Sri Srinivas Gowrd, S/o.'Sri Gowra Subbaraya Setty, aged about 80 years, Rl/oD.No. 1-8-384, 5th Floor Gowra Grand, Rasoolpurachowrastha, Begumpet, Hyderabad-500003 ...pETtnoNER 1. The Commissioner of lncome Tax, (Exemption), 2nd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Opposite LB Stadium, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad - 500004 Z. ttrd tncome Tax Officer ( Hqrs), - (Exrirp), Aayakar Bhawan, Opposite LB Stadium, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad - 500004. 3. The Dv. Director of lncome Tax, CPC, Bengaluru. 4. The ientral Board of Direct Taxes, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi. ...RES'ONDENTS Petition under Anicle 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, order or direction more particularly in the nature of a writ of Mandamus declaring the order dated 28-11-2024 bearing, DIN No' |TBNCOMIFtlTt2O24-251107O701568(1) passed by Respondent No. 1 u/s' 119(2Xb) of the Act and the consequent intimation daled 04-12-2024 bearing DIN No. CPCt2324tA7517671OOB for the AY. 2023-24, as beingarbitrary, mechanical, perverse, without application of mind, bad in law, violative of A(icle 19(1Xg) and 265 of the Constitution of lndia and the lncome Tax Act and consequently set aside the same by condoning the delay of 58 days in filing Form 10 lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition r- ndei Section '151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated I in the affidavil filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to I stay all further procdedings pursuant to the passing of the impuqned order dated 28-11-2024 bearing'DlN No. ITBA/COM/ F 117 t2024-25/1070701568( 1 ) passed by Respondent No 1 04-12-2024 bearin Rs. 48,67,440i- for Jrr. ts j orN the nY. I (2)(b) of the Act and the consequent intimation dated No. CPC|2324|A7517671OOB raising a demarrd of 2023-24 Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. DUNDU MANMOHAN REP Ms. K. PRABHABATI I Counsel for the ReCpondents: SRI A. RAMA KRISHNA REDDY JUNIOR SC REP i SRI P. MURALI KRISHNA, SENTOR SC FOR 1 INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT I I The Court made thd following: ORDER I I I 1 THE HOI{OURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOT'RABLE DR. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI UrRIT PETITION No.35977 OF 2024 ORDER: peraon'ble Si Justtce Sujog Paul) Ms. K. Prabhabati, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri A.Rama Krishna Reddy, learned Junior Standing Counsel representing Sri P. Murali Krishna, Iearned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Depa-rtment. 2. With the consent, finally heard. 3. This petition assails the order, dated 28.11.2024, whereby, the application of Assessee daLed 22.04.2O24 seeking condonation of delay of (58) days is dismissed. Criticizing this order, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the order contains reproduction of circulars and orders passed by the Court and only reference to the application for condonation of delay can be found in para Nos.6 and 7 of the impugned order. No iota of reason is assigned as to why reasons given by the petitioner in application for condonation of delay did not suit the authority. In the absence of assigning reasons, the impugned order may be set aside and the matter may be remitted back for hling application afresh' 2 i 1 ,i I 1 1 ! l I Reliance is placed on the order of this CourL in WP No.31041 ol 2024 dated 14.11.2024. 4. Lcnrn,:d Standing Counsel for Income Tax sr.Lpported the impugned c,rder, but, fairly admitted that the impugned order is indeed covered by the order of this Court in WP.No.31rf 4l of 2024. : ln said u.nt petition, this Court recorded as under: \"6. 'l'he impugned order rejecting the application for condonation of delay shows that only in paragraph No.1 hnding is recorded that \"ho$,ever, the assessee has not submitted sufficient reason which prevented t-he assessee from hling the same, within the due date,,. ln our consiCered opinion, the aforesaid hnding is infacl .conclusion, arrived at by the second respondent. There is no tota of ,liscussion in the entire orderirelating to the reasons assigned by the petitioner for condonatior-r of delay in Annexures P. 1O to 13. The 'reasons' are helcl to be heart lte ats of the 'conclusion'. The Apex Court in Kranthi Associates Priyate Limited vs. Masood Ahmed Khan [{2O1O)9 SCC 496 emphasized the need of assigning reasons in administ rative, quzrsi- judicial and j udicial orders. The appellate authority being quasi-judicial authority wa:; obliged to assign reasons to show application of mind and to ensure transparency. In absence thereof, the impugned order cannot sustain judic:.al scmtiny. If paragraph Nos.3 to 7 of the impugned order is examined, it witl be clear that from paragraph No.3 to 5, the learned authority has just reproduced the ratio decidendi of certair-r judgments. In paragraph No.6, he discussed about the judgment arrd principles flowing thereliom. [n paragraph No.7, he-mechanically recorded that in view of above reasons, the application is rejected. l 7. A rnlcrdscopic reading of entire order leaves no room for zrny doubt that there is no discussion at all on the reasons actuzrlly furnished by the petitioner in the application for condonalion of delay. Thus, the inrJrugned order deserves to be jettisoned. 1(2010)9 SCC 496 4 8. Resultan:ly, the impugned order is set aside.\" 3 5. Since thi impugned order does not contain any reason as to why the reasohs assigned by the petitioner do not constitute \"sufficient cau$e\" the impugned order cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. In addition, it is noticeable in para No.7, the finding is I I given that \"in view of above reasons and based on the meits of the I case\", application for condonation of delay was rejected. I In our view, onbe delay was not condoned, there was no occasion for the competint authority to enter into the merits of the case. More so, when the petitioner had no opportunity to argue the I matter on the rherits of the case and hearing was confined on the I application for condonation of delay. I i 6. For thesL: cumulative reasons, the impugned order, I I dated 28.11.2024, is set aside. The application for condonation of I delay is restored. The competent authority shall rehear the same I I and pass a fresh order, in accordance' with law. The respondents shall not t\"t \"i any coercive action against the petitioner till decision on application for condonation of delay. The petitiotrer undertakes to appear before the appellate authority on oa.o1.2025. I I ! I i I I ! I i I I J 1 7. Accorrlin y, the Writ Petition is disposed of, without SD/.T. TIRUMALA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR TIRUMALA DEVI expressing ,.rylopi.rio, on the merits of the case. No order as to I costs. Miscellaheous petitions pending, if any, shall st-and closed. NOTE: That the name of the counsel for petitioner, senior standing counsel for lncome Tax Department & condonation of delay at para No.3 of the order dated 31.12.2024 in W.P.No. 35977 of 2O24 were wrongly read and the same has been corrected and substituted as \"Ms. K. PRABHABATI\", SRI P. MURAL.I KRISHNA, Senior Standing Counsel for lncome Tax Department & \"(58) days\" respectively as per the orders of Hon'ble Court dated 08.01.2025 in l.A.No.l ol ZO2S (For Being Mentioned) This amended order shall substitute the earlier order which has already been dispatched on 02.01.2025 SD/.T. ASSIST //TRUE COPY// To, I t) tNT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER 1. The Comnrissioner of lncome Tax, (Exemption), 2nd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Opposite LB Stadium, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad - 500004. 2. The lnconre Tax Officer (Hqrs), (Exmp), Aayakar Bhawan, Opposite LB Stadium, Basheer Bagh, Hybeia6aa - SO06O+. ' 3. The Dy. Director of lncome Tax, CPC, Benoaluru. 4. The Central Board of Dire4-t Taxes, Miiistry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi. 5. One CC to Ms. K. PRABHABATI, Advocate [OPUC] 6. ONE CC tO SRI. P. MURALI KRISHNA, SENIOR SC FOR INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT [OPUCI 7. Two CD Copies BM BS i I I I I I HIGH COURT DATED: 3111212024 0810112025 I AMENDED ORDER WP.No.3597 ot 2024 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS /.2 zly' ./ts i i i 1 1 1 1 i 1 l i I I I I I I 1 I j I i I I I I I I I I I { I I I I 1 I 1 t tltI STA Ie' 2 B Ji 2U25 z a o* c q ,r * o !s'r,r, rr // I ) t 7, I : I 1 "