Sri Krishnadevaraya University Vs Commissioner of Income Tax

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 writ, direction or order in the nature of writ of CERTIORARI to call for the records in the file of the Respondent to quash the impugned order passed by the ist Respondent under section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in DIN and Order No. lTBA/COM/F/17/2023- 24/1055844569(1) dated 08.09.2023 for the Assessment Year 2016-17 and consequently direct the 2nd Respondent before whom the said Petition was filed to pass fresh ordersand pass

¶18

2

¶19

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶20

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 dispense with the production of the original Impugned Order under section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) in DIN and Order No. ITBA/COM/F/17/2023-24/1055844569(1) dated 08.09.2023 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17 and pass

¶21

IA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶22

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 may be stay further proceedings Order No. ITBA/COM/F/17/2023- 24/1055844569(1) dated 08.09.2023 for the Assessment Year (AY’) 2016-17 issued by respondent No.1 only pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass

¶23

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶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 vacate the interim order dated 04.11.2025 in lA No 2 of 2025 in WP 28545 of 2025 and dismiss the captioned Writ Petition with exemplary cost and pass

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶26

1.KS Naveen

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶28

1.

¶29

3

¶30

The Court made the following order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao)

¶31

The petitioner, which is a university established under a statute, was required to file its returns for the assessment year 2016-17, within the time stipulated for the filing of such returns. The last date to file such returns being 30.09.2016. As such returns had not been filed, a notice was issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. This notice was received by the petitioner on 21.04.2023. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application, under Section 119 2(B) of the Income Tax Act, on 16.05.2023, for condonation of delay in the filing of the return. Apart from this, the petitioner also sought to upload the said return. As the system was disabled, from receiving such a return, the petitioner filed a grievance petition on 22.05.2023.

¶32

The application of the petitioner, for condonation of delay was rejected by the 1^st respondent on 08.09.2023. Being aggrieved by the said order of rejection, the petitioner approached this Court by way of the present writ petition.

¶33

The petitioner, has raised various grounds assailing the said order of rejection. One of the said ground is the violation of principles of natural justice. It is contended that no reasons are given in the order of rejection and as such, said order would have to be set aside, on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.

¶34

4

¶35

Sri Y.N.Vivekananda, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents would contend that the writ petition itself is not maintainable as it has been hit by laches. Learned Standing Counsel would contend that the order of rejection is passed on 08.09.2023, while the writ petition came to be filed in October 2025 and the inordinate delay in filing of this writ petition has not been explained.

¶36

The contention raised by the learned Standing Counsel merits consideration. However, the fact remains that the petitioner is a public university, set up under a statute, and such entities would require to be treated liberally. In those circumstances, we are of the view that the delay in filing of the writ petition can be condoned.

¶37

The order of rejection dated 08.09.2023, merely states that the petitioner had not submitted sufficient reason which prevented the petitioner from filing the return within the due date. The said reason is a cryptic statement, which does not reveal whether the contention raised by the petitioner have been considered by the authority.

¶38

It is settled law that reasons have to be set out in orders, which are in the nature of the present order and that such reasons should reflect the mind of the authority. Any deviation from this principle, would have to be treated as violation of principles of natural justice requiring the interference of this Court.

¶39

5

¶40

In the circumstances, this writ petition is allowed, setting aside the order of rejection dated 08.09.2023, passed by the 1^st respondent and the matter is remanded back to the 1^st respondent to consider the application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay after giving an opportunity

¶41

of hearing to the petitioner and pass orders containing reasons.

¶42

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶43

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

¶44

_______________________

¶45

R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

¶46

¶47