Sri.S. K. Dharmesh Vs Union of India — Income Tax | Karnataka HC (2025)

Sri.S. K. Dharmesh Vs Union of India — Income Tax | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned Annexure-E order dated 26.08.2024 set aside; petitioner's application under Section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay of 152 days in filing the Income Tax Return for AY 2023-24 allowed; respondents directed to accept the returns submitted for AY 2023-24, with liberty to verify the petitioner's claim and proceed further in accordance with law.

Issue for consideration

Whether the rejection by respondent No.2 of the petitioner's application under Section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay of 152 days in filing the income tax return for AY 2023-24 is liable to be set aside and the delay condoned.

Court's answer

The respondents adopted a hyper technical approach in refusing to condone the delay, without appreciating that the petitioner's inability and omission in filing the I.T. returns within the prescribed period stemmed from non-reporting of TDS/TCS in 26AS TRACES.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner's failure to file the I.T. returns within the prescribed period, on account of bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, clearly constituted genuine hardship as contemplated in the Circular dated 09.06.2015; the respondents' failure to appreciate this resulted in an erroneous conclusion warranting interference by this Court.

Key takeaways

Adopting a justice oriented approach and having regard to the valid and sufficient grounds pleaded, the Court deemed it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order, condone the delay in filing the returns, and allow the petitioner's application.ratio¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Income-tax – Condonation of delay u/S 119(2)(b), Income Tax Act, 1961 – Return for A.Y. 2023-24 filed 152 days late because Government Departments did not report TDS/TCS fully in 26AS TRACES, leaving relevant documents unavailable – Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Bengaluru rejected the condonation application by order dated 26.08.2024 bearing No. ITBA/COM/F/17/202425/1067970458(1) (Annexure-E) – HC held the rejection reflected a 'hyper technical approach'; the assessee's bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause amounted to 'genuine hardship' contemplated by the Circular dated 09.06.2015, whose non-appreciation produced an erroneous conclusion warranting interference – Impugned order set aside; condonation application allowed; respondents directed to accept the A.Y. 2023-24 return, with liberty to verify the claim and proceed in accordance with law – Refund of Rs.48,84,830/- prayed for follows upon acceptance/verification.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:9392 WP No. 36452 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 36452 OF 2024 (T-IT)

BETWEEN:

SRI. S.K. DHARMESH S/O S.R. KOLLOORAIAH GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, SIRIBALI COMPLEX MAIN ROAD, GROUND FLOOR, AZAD ROAD, OPP. BUS STAND, THIRTHAHALLI, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 432.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. ATUL KRISHNA RAO ALUR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY (REVENUE), MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110 001.

Digitally signed by LEELAVATHI S R Location: High Court of Karnataka

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 C.R. BUILDING, NO.1, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. M.N. KUMAR FOR R1; SRI. M. DILIP, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26^TH AUGUST, 2024 BEARING NO. ITBA/COM/F/17/202425/1067970458(1) PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 MARKED AS ANNEXURE-E FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2023-24 INSOFAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED; DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:9392 WP No. 36452 of 2024

TO ACCEPT THE INCOME TAX RETURN OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2023-24 BY CONDONING DELAY IN FILING ITR UNDER SECTION 119(2)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961; DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO REFUND THE INCOME TAX OF RS.48,84,830/- UPON ACCEPTING THE RETURN FILED BY THE PETITIONER; AND ETC.

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

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

ORAL ORDER

In this petition, petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned order at Annexure–E dated 26^th August, 2024 passed by the respondent No.2, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) seeking condonation of delay of 152 days in filing the income tax returns in relation to the Assessment Year 2023-24 was rejected by the respondent No.2.

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

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in relation to the aforesaid Assessment Year 2023-24, the petitioner filed returns after the prescribed period along with the application seeking condonation of delay of 152 days in filing the returns

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9392 WP No. 36452 of 2024

interalia contending that due to non-availability of relevant documents on account of the Government Departments not reporting the TDS / TCS fully in 26AS TRACES 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 respondent 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.

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.

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 non-reporting of TDS / TCS in 26AS TRACES, as a result of which, relevant documents were not

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:9392 WP No. 36452 of 2024

available with the petitioner who could file the I.T. returns subsequent to expiry of the prescribed period. 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.

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.

In the result, I pass the following:

O R D E R

(i) The petition is hereby allowed .

(ii) The impugned order at Annexure–E dated 26^th August, 2024, is hereby set-aside;

5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:9392 WP No. 36452 of 2024

(iii) The application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay of 152 days in filing Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Year 2023-24, is hereby allowed;

(iv) The respondents are directed to accept the returns submitted by the petitioner for the aforesaid Assessment Year 2023-24;

(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.

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

ARK/SRL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9