The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S Udhyaman Investments Pvt. Ltd.

M/S UDHYAMAN INVESTMENTS PVT LTD A COMPANY UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 1ST FLOOR, EMBASSY POINT NO.150, INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. REPRESENTED BY SRI. D. VIJAYAKUMAR, S/O DHARMALINGAM GANDHIMANI, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS

¶26

…RESPONDENT

¶27

(RESPONDENT SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶28

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.33569/2024 DATED 28/03/2025.

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:45696-DB WA No. 1141 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶33

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶34

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶35

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD)

¶36

This Intra-Court appeal is filed challenging the writ Court's order dated 28.03.2025 in W.P.No.33569/2024. The respondent has filed this writ petition calling in question the second appellant's order dated 13.11.2024 under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short, ' the IT Act' ]. The second appellant, by this order, has rejected the respondent's request to condone the delay in filing the revised income tax returns relevant to the Assessment Year 2018-19. The writ Court's reasoning to allow the writ petition condoning the delay with direction to the appellants to accept the

¶37

4 -

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:45696-DB WA No. 1141 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

revised returns and request for rectification is in the light of the following;

¶41

“A perusal of the impugned order/communication will indicate that the respondents have adopted hyper technical approach in refusing to condone the delay without appreciating that the inability and omission on the part of the petitioner to file the revised I.T. returns within the prescribed period was due to inadvertently missing the claim of TDS Credit subsequent to expiry of the prescribed period. The respondents failed to appreciate that the petitioner could not file his revised income Tax returns within the prescribed period on account of bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, which clearly constituted genuine hardship on the part of the petitioner/assessee as contemplated in the said Circular dated 09.06.2015 and failure to appreciate this, has resulted in erroneous conclusion warranting interference by this Court in the present petition ."

¶42

Mr. Y. V. Raviraj, the learned Senior

¶43

Standing Counsel for the appellants, submits that

¶44

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:45696-DB WA No. 1141 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

the second appellant, under the Circular dated 09.06.2015, could have condoned the delay up to six years from the end of the Assessment Year for which the application relates, but this Circular is revisited by the Circular dated 01.10.2024, and in terms of this next Circular, the second appellant could have condoned the delay in applying for filing of revised return and refund up to five years. The learned Senior Standing Counsel emphasizes that [i] in the present case, the relevant Assessment Year is 2018 and the application for condonation of delay had to be filed before 31.03.2023; [ii] the respondent has applied on 16.10.2024 and as such, the application was definitely beyond the period of five years contemplated under the Circular dated 01.10.2024; and [iii] the writ Court , has not considered this aspect.

¶47

However, Mr. Y. V. Raviraj cannot dispute

¶48

that the Circular dated 01.10.2024 and the previous

¶49

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:45696-DB WA No. 1141 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

Circular dated 09.06.2015 are issued in exercise of powers under Section 192(2)(b) of the IT Act, which Authorises the Board to condone the delay if it considers desirable to alleviate genuine hardship to an assessee in any case or class of cases by special or general order. The learned Senior Standing counsel also does not dispute that the respondent has been pursuing with the Authorities for rectification asserting that inadvertently it had missed claiming TDS Credit reflected in Form 26AS for the Assessment Year 2018-2019, and that such application for rectification has remained unattended to.

¶52

It is also seen that the underlying assertion is that the respondent has offered the income tax but has failed to claim TDS Credit for the same. If under the statute the Board has exercised its jurisdiction to issue a general order by Circulars as mentioned above to address genuine hardship and if

¶53

7 -

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC:45696-DB WA No. 1141 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

the writ Court, in exercise of its plenary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the peculiar circumstances as aforesaid has intervened,

¶57

this Court does not find a reason to entertain this Intra-Court appeal. Further, the writ Court's order is confined to the facts of the case, and as such, this appeal stands rejected.

¶58

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶59

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶60

RB

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/S Udhyaman Investments Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/S Udhyaman Investments Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Chethan Naik B T Vs Smt Roja T N

Smt Jyothi v S Vs Manager

Sri Girish K C Vs the State of Karnataka

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri Nagaraj B

Karnataka Lokayukta Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Srinivas. T. R. Vs the State of Karnataka