WIPRO GE MEDICAL SYSTEMS (P) LTD EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND TRUST V. CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTER (CPC) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT and INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(2)(3) and THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2

WP/21375/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Wipro GE Medical Systems (P) Ltd Employees Provident Fund Trust, which sought to quash intimation and orders from the Income Tax Department regarding tax liabilities for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16. The petitioner argued that the intimation and subsequent demands were based on incorrect filings, as the returns were filed in the wrong form (ITR-7 instead of ITR-5). The Income Tax Department had initially accepted the exemption claim for a different assessment year but rejected it for the years in question, leading to the dispute. The court found merit in the petitioner's arguments, noting the inconsistency in the department's handling of similar cases and allowed the petition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 815682 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 03-12-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, India Trusts Act, 1882
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: M DILIP
• Assessee Lawyers: T SURYANARAYANA
• Keywords: Assessment Year; Condonation of delay; Exemption Claim; Income Tax Return
• Section: 119(2)(b); 10(25); 226

Judgement Text

" - 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50757 WP No. 21375 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 21375 OF 2023 (T-IT) BETWEEN: WIPRO GE MEDICAL SYSTEMS (P) LTD EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND TRUST ESTABLISHED UNDER THE INDIA TRUSTS ACT, 1882 # 4, KADUGODI INDUSTRIAL AREA, BANGALORE – 560 067 REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS TRUSTEE MR YESHWANTH PULLURU, …PETITIONER (BY SRI. T. SURYANARAYANA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTER (CPC) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTED HEREIN BY THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC BENGALURU – 560 500 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(2)(3), 3RD FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING 6TH BLOCK, 80 FEET ROAD KORAMANGALA BANGALORE – 560 095 3. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 6TH BLOCK 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE – 560 095 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. DILIP, ADVOCATE) Printed from counselvise.com Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50757 WP No. 21375 of 2023 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE INTIMATION DATED 29/03/2016 (ANNEXURE-E) BEARING DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION NO. CPC/1415/V7/1549490542, 2015201437092060834T ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:- “(a) quashing the intimation dated 29.03.2016 (Annexure- E) bearing document identification No.CPC/1415/V7/ 1549490542, 2015201437092060834T issued by the 1st Respondent for the assessment year 2014-15; (b) quashing the intimation dated 24.12.2016 bearing document identification No.CPC/1516/A7/ 1600336859, 2016201537060508471T (Annexure-K) issued by the 1st Respondent for the assessment year 2015-16; (c) quashing the order dated 26.04.2023 passed by the 3rd Respondent bearing DIN No.ITBA/COM/F/17/ 2023-24/1052353955(1) (Annexure-T), rejecting the application filed by the Petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act, and condoning the delay in filing the return of income in Form ITR-5 for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16; and Printed from counselvise.com - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50757 WP No. 21375 of 2023 (d) pass such other or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that on 17.10.2014 and 13.09.2015, the petitioner filed its income tax returns for the assessment year 2014-15 and 2015-16 claiming exemption under Section 10(25) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the I.T. Act”). In pursuance of the same, respondent No.1 issued an intimation/demand notice dated 29.03.2016 itself allowing the petitioner’s claim and determining petitioner’s liability as Rs.4,09,27,957/- for the assessment year 2014-15. The petitioner filed response dated 04.04.2016 and thereafter, respondent No.1 issued one more intimation cum demand notice dated 24.12.2016 itself, disallowing petitioner’s exemption claim and determining tax liability as Rs.7,47,31,875/- for the subsequent assessment year 2015-16. In response to the same, the petitioner filed objections dated 16.08.2018. Thereafter, on 16.11.2018, Printed from counselvise.com - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50757 WP No. 21375 of 2023 respondent No.1 passed an Assessment Order for the assessment year 2016-17 accepting the claim for exemption. 4. The petitioners filed two letters, both dated 05.02.2019 expressing disagreement in the demand for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16 in the E-filing portal, to which respondent No.2 issued two letters dated 16.06.2022 demanding outstanding demands for the said assessment years, to which the petitioners filed response inter alia contending that the entire income was exempt from payment of taxes. Thereafter, respondent No.2 issued a letter dated 06.12.2022 rejecting the request of nullification of the demand. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application on 31.01.2023 before respondent No.3 under Section 119(2)(b) of the I.T. Act, inter alia stating that due to oversight and inadvertence, the I.T. returns at Annexures-C and J for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16 were filed in Form ITR-7 instead of Form ITR-5, which has resulted in the impugned endorsements, which are contrary to the material on record especially when the correct returns in Form ITR-5 has been correctly filed for the previous year is accepted by the respondents. Printed from counselvise.com - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50757 WP No. 21375 of 2023 5. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that apart from the fact that the order dated 26.04.2023 rejecting the application filed under Section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay in filing the income tax returns is cryptic, non-speaking, laconic and an unreasoned order, the said delay in filing returns in correct form was on account of mistake committed by the petitioner in filing returns in wrong form and in the said circumstances, there was delay in fling income tax returns, especially when the same was filed by the petitioner albeit/although in wrong form and an application for condonation of delay was not filed earlier. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the income tax returns of the petitioner for the assessment year for all previous years prior to 2014-15 and the correct forms filed for the subsequent years were accepted by the respondents, although the earlier forms in which returns was filed is incorrect, I am of the view that mere filing of the Printed from counselvise.com - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50757 WP No. 21375 of 2023 income Tax returns in incorrect form No.7 cannot be considered or treated as the petitioner not having filed income tax returns at all, thereby warranting interference under Section 119(2)(b) of the I.T. Act for filing income tax returns. After realizing its mistake, the petitioner subsequently filed an application under Section 119(2)(b) of the I.T. Act seeking condonation of delay. In this context, it is submitted that the said application filed for condonation of delay for the assessment year 2014-15 may be directed to be treated as an application for the subsequent year 2015-16, which were filed under identical circumstances and the impugned order passed by the respondents rejecting the application deserves to be set aside and the delay in filing the income tax returns be condoned. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the intimations at Annexures-E and K and the impugned order at Annexure-T and condone the delay on the part of the petitioner in filing income tax returns for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16, in accordance with law. 9. In the result, I pass the following: Printed from counselvise.com - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50757 WP No. 21375 of 2023 ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned intimations at Annexures-E and K dated 29.03.2016 and 24.12.2016 respectively, issued by respondent No.1 and the impugned order at Annexure-T dated 26.04.2023 passed by respondent No.3 are hereby set aside. (iii) The petitioner is permitted to file fresh income tax returns for the assessment year 2014-15 and 2015-16 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (iv) The delay on the part of the petitioner for filing incorrect income tax returns is hereby condoned. (v) The respondents are directed to process the returns and proceed further, in accordance with law. (vi) It is made clear that having regard to the fact that the present order has been passed in relation to the assessment year 2015-16 in respect of which no application for condonation of delay has been Printed from counselvise.com - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50757 WP No. 21375 of 2023 made and the present order having been passed under different circumstance by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the present order shall not be treated as a precedent nor the same shall carry any precedential value for any purpose, whatsoever. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE BMC List No.: 2 Sl No.: 26 Printed from counselvise.com "