The Karnataka Co. Op Credit Society Ltd. Vs the Income Tax Officer

THE KARNATAKA CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SMT. SHAKUNTALA MISHANNAVAR W/O RAMAPPA MISHANNAVAR, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OPP. NEW COURT SALIKERI BUILDING, JALANNAGAR CROSS, BAGALKOT ROAD, BIJAPUR - 586109 PAN. AADAT6238M PH NO. 98867 31588 EMAIL. [email protected]

¶10

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SMT. PRATIBHA VASANTRAO RAJESHWARKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 AND TPS, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, NEAR ALL INDIA RADIO, ATHANI ROAD, VIJAYAPUR - 586104.

¶15

THE ASSESSMENT UNIT NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT,

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:51702 WP No. 32869 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ROOM NO.401, 2ND FLOOR, E-RAMP, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, DELHI - 110 003.

¶20

CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CCIT (1) OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CCIT (1) CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU - 560001.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. M. THIRUMALESH, ADVOCATE)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER, OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE ORDER (DIGITALLY SIGNED) DATED 23.07.2025 PASSED UNDER SECTION 119(2)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19 BY RESPONDENT NO.3, BEARING DIN AND ORDER NO. ITBA/COM/F/17/2025-26/1078803702(1) FOR AY2018-19 (ANNEXURE A), ORDER (DIGITALLY SIGNED) PASSED UNDER SECTION 119(2)(B) DATED 23.07.2025 BEARING DIN AND ORDER NO. ITBA/COM/F/17/2025-26/1078804041(1) FOR 2019-20 (ANNEXURE B) AND ORDER (DIGITALLY SIGNED) PASSED UNDER SECTION 119(2)(B) DATED 23.07.2025 BEARING DIN AND ORDER NO. ITBA/COM/F/17/2025-26/1078804414(1) FOR 2020-21 (ANNEXURE - C) AND ETC.

¶24

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:51702 WP No. 32869 of 2025

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

In this petition, petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned orders at Annexures–A, B and C all dated 23.07.2025 passed by the respondent No.3, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) seeking condonation of delay of 1281 days in filing the income tax returns in relation to the Assessment Year 2018-19 and to condone the delay and let the petitioner file return of income for the Assessment Years 2019-20 and 2020-21 was rejected by the respondent No.3.

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶31

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in relation to the aforesaid Assessment Year 2018-19 the petitioner filed returns after the prescribed period along with the application seeking condonation of delay of 1281 days in filing the returns and for the Assessment Years 2019-20 and 2020-21 the petitioner filed

¶32

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:51702 WP No. 32869 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

the application seeking condonation of delay and consequently permit the petitioner to file return of income, interalia contending that due to misinformation and lack of awareness the petitioner could not file income tax returns within due date and owing to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, the petitioner was not in a position to file the returns within the prescribed period. It was contended that the delay in filing the I.T. returns was due to genuine hardship as contemplated in the Circular No.9/2015 dated 09.06.2015 and as such, the respondents committed an error in rejecting the application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) of the I.T.Act, which deserves to be set aside.

¶35

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents-Revenue would support the impugned order and submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶36

A perusal of the impugned order 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 I.T. returns within the prescribed period was due to misinformation and lack of

¶37

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:51702 WP No. 32869 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

awareness. The respondents failed to appreciate that the petitioner could not file his I.T. 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.

¶40

Under these circumstances, adopting justice oriented approach and having regard to valid and sufficient ground pleaded by the petitioner in support of his claim for condonation of delay, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and condone the delay in filing the returns by the petitioner by allowing the application filed by the petitioner.

¶41

In the result, I pass the following:

¶42

O R D E R

¶43

(i) The petition is hereby allowed .

¶44

(ii) The impugned order at Annexure– A, B and C all dated 23.07.2025, are hereby set-aside;

¶45

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:51702 WP No. 32869 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

(iii) The application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay of 1281 days in filing Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Years 2018-19 and the application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay and consequently permit the petitioner to file return of income for the Assessment Years 2019-20 and 2020-21, is hereby allowed;

¶48

(iv) The respondents are directed to accept the returns submitted by the petitioner for the Assessment Year 2018-19 and permit the petitioner to file return of income for the Assessment Years 201920 and 2020-21;

¶49

(v) It is needless to state that respondents are at liberty to verify the claim of the petitioner and proceed further in accordance with law.

¶50

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶51

SJK

¶52

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 9

The Karnataka Co. Op Credit Society Ltd. v. the Income Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Karnataka Co. Op Credit Society Ltd. v. the Income Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devanatha Y. K. Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 7 (2) (5)

M R Pro Tech Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Lenovo Global Technology (India) Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Sri Vishwavallabha Theertha Swamiji Vs the Income-Tax Officer

Shri Muniswamy Gowda Muralidhar Vs Additional Commissioner of Central Tax

Sri Mandya Ramalinge Gowda Ashokananda Vs Chiief Commissioner of Income Tax