The Chilakalapudi Pacs Ltd., Vs The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax

THE CHALLAPALLI PACS LTD, REPTD. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, THOTA KRISHNA RAO, SON OF T. CHIRANJEEVULU CHALLAPALLI (VILLAGE POST)-521126, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH

¶13

...PETITIONER

¶14

AND

¶15

THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, I T TOWER, A C GUARDS, MASAB TANK, HYDERABAD-500 004, TELANGANA.

¶16

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT.

¶17

THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, FLOOR, JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI-110 001.

¶18

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶19

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 topleased to issue a vyrit of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly in the nature of mandamus, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, quashing the impugned rejection order dated 31.01.2025 passed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act vide DIN Order

¶20

2

¶21

RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.19099, 19103 & 19390 of 2025

¶22

No. ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-25/1072765421(1) by the 1st respondent, for the Assessment Year 2018-19, without considering the detailed grounds of condonation, as arbitrary, illegal, unjustified and contrary to the provisions of the Act and in violation of Principles of Natural Justice, and consequently direct the 1st Respondent to provide one more opportunity and adjudicate the same on merits and pass

¶23

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶24

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 pleased to suspend the operation of impugned Order of the 1 Respondent, passed vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-25/ 1072765421(1) dated 31.01.2025, and desist/ stay the respondents from taking any further steps pursuant to the impugned rejection order for the Assessment Year 2018-19, pending the hearing and final disposal of the above writ petition, for an order restraining the respondents, its officers, sub-ordinates from taking any steps in furtherance or in connection with the impugned rejection order, as otherwise, the petitioner would be put to severe loss and hardship.

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶26

1.C SANJEEVA RAO

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶28

1.Y N VIVEKANANDA

¶29

3

¶30

RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.19099, 19103 & 19390 of 2025

¶31

The Court made the following Common Order:

¶32

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

¶33

The issue raised before this Court, in relation to the cases of these petitioners is whether the rejection of the application of the petitioners for condonation of delay, in filing their returns, for the assessment year, 2018-2019, is correct or not.

¶34

This Court, in W.P.No.27631 of 2024 & batch, in its Order, dated 10.02.2026, after considering the provisions of Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Circular No.13/2023, had held that, the rejection of the application for condonation of delay, was not correct and a genuine hardship, had been made out.

¶35

The details on which the notices were issued and the dates on which

¶36

the returns were filed are set out in the table below:

¶37

Writ Petition No.	Name of the petitioner	Dates on which the returns should be filed	Dates on which the returns had actually been filed 31	Dates on which the application for condonation of delay had been submitted	Date of order of rejection
19099 of 2025	M/s. Challapalli Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society	31.10.2019	31.01.2023 31	20.01.2024	31.01.2025
19103 of 2025	M/s. Chilakalapudi Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society	31.10.2019	04.01.2023	10.01.2024	04.12.2024

¶38

4

¶39

RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.19099, 19103 & 19390 of 2025

¶40

19390 of 2025	M/s. Mekavaripalem Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society	31.10.2019	31 14.10.2023	14.03.2024	04.12.2024

¶41

In the present cases, the applications for condonation of delay were rejected, on the ground that, sufficient material to demonstrate genuine hardship, had not been placed before the Authorities. The further view taken in the impugned orders is that, the ignorance of the Circulars to file returns within the time stipulated and the non-availability of the proper legal assistance, cannot be a ground for condonation of delay. This Court, in the Order, dated 10.02.2026, in W.P.No.27631 of 2024 & batch, after considering the similar issues, had held that, the said reasons are not sufficient for rejecting the applications for condonation of delay.

¶42

Following the same, these Writ Petitions are also allowed, setting aside the orders of rejection for condonation of delay and with a further direction to the Authorities to treat the returns as having been filed within time. There shall

¶43

be no order as to costs.

¶44

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶45

R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

¶46

________________________

¶47

_________________ T.C.D. SEKHAR, J

¶48

Date:10.02.2026 KPV