Central Board of Direct Taxes Vs the Competent Authority for — Income Tax | Karnataka HC (2026)

Central Board of Direct Taxes Vs the Competent Authority for — Income Tax | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Review petition disposed of subject to clarification of the final order dated 09.04.2025 in W.P.No.24896/2024: the respondent/Competent Authority to be treated as the successor/representative in interest of the original assessee (M/s IMA) for the purpose of the Income Tax Act and the Section 119(2)(b) application; the order expressly declared non-precedential.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order under review (final order dated 09.04.2025 in W.P.No.24896/2024) had to be clarified to record that the original income tax returns were in fact filed by M/s IMA and that the respondent/Competent Authority is only its legal representative and successor/representative in interest of the original assessee.

Court's answer

Subject to clarifying the final order dated 09.04.2025 so as to treat the respondent/Competent Authority as the successor/representative in interest of the original assessee (M/s IMA) for the purpose of the Income Tax Act and the application under Section 119(2)(b), the review petition stands disposed of.

Ratio / Principle

The present order is passed in the peculiar/special/unique facts and circumstances of the instant case and shall not be treated as a precedent nor shall it carry any precedential value for any purpose whatsoever.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Review Petition (Order 47 Rule 1 CPC 1908) by the Central Board of Direct Taxes and the Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Karnataka and Goa) against the order dated 09.04.2025 in W.P.No.24896/2024 (T-IT), whereby the Competent Authority for M/s. IMA and Others Scam Cases had succeeded in getting the Annexure-E order dated 02.07.2024 set aside and the delay of 1444 days (AY 2016-17) and 714 days (AY 2018-19) in filing income tax returns condoned under Section 119(2)(b) on the ground of genuine hardship contemplated in Circular No.9/2015 dated 09.06.2015. Disposing of the review petition, the Court clarified that the original returns were filed by M/s IMA and that the respondent/Competent Authority is to be treated as the successor/representative in interest of the original assessee for the purpose of the Income Tax Act and the Section 119(2)(b) application. The order was expressly stated to be confined to the peculiar/special/unique facts of the case and to carry no precedential value.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:15245 RP No. 243 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

REVIEW PETITION NO. 243 OF 2025 IN

WRIT PETITION NO.24896/2024 (T-IT)

BETWEEN:

CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, OT AND WT SECTION, ROOM NO.13, 5^TH FLOOR, JEEVAN VIHAR BUILDING, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI-110 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CIT (OSD) (OT AND WT) MISS. SHASHI KAJILE.

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THE PR. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KARNATAKA AND GOA, GROUND FLOOR, C.R.BUILDING, NO.1, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. Y.V. RAVIRAJ AND SRI M.DILIP, ADVOCATES)

AND:

THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY FOR M/S. IMA AND OTHERS SCAM CASES, 3^RD FLOOR, V V TOWER, PODIUM BLOCK, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND SEPCIAL OFFICER,

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:15245 RP No. 243 of 2025

HC-KAR

SRI AMLAN ADITYA BISWAS, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. VEERESH R. BUDIHAL, ADVOCATE)

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC 1908, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 09.04.2025 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.24896/2024.

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

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

ORAL ORDER

This petition makes exception to the final order dated 09.04.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.No.24896/2024, whereby the said petition filed by the respondent/competent authority was allowed by this Court as hereunder:

“In this petition, petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned order at Annexure–E dated 02.07.2024 passed by respondent No.1, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) seeking condonation of delay of 1444 days in filing the income tax returns in relation to the Assessment Year 2016-17 and 714 days in filing the income tax returns in relation to the Assessment Year 2018-19 was rejected by respondent No.1.

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:15245 RP No. 243 of 2025

HC-KAR

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

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in relation to the aforesaid Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2018-19, the petitioner filed returns after the prescribed period along with the application seeking condonation of delay of 1444 days and 714 days, respectively, in filing the returns interalia contending that the petitioner is competent authority set up for recovering the money from the financial establishments that were running Ponzi schemes and other fraudulent schemes and disburse the same to the victims of the said scheme. The Petitioner had to file a return of income based on the amount that was recovered from the aforesaid establishment and as such, due to discrepancies in valuating the exact recovery made, the petitioner had to file a revised return of income belatedly 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

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:15245 RP No. 243 of 2025

HC-KAR

of delay filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) of the I.T.Act, which deserves to be set aside.

4. 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.

5. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the respondents have adopted a hyper technical approach in refusing to condone the delay without appreciating that the petitioner couldn't not file the revised return of income before the expiry of the prescribed period as there was discrepancy in valuating the exact recovery made. The respondents failed to appreciate that the petitioner could not file its 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.

6. Under these circumstances, by adopting a justice oriented approach and having regard to valid and sufficient ground pleaded by the petitioner in

5 -

NC: 2026:KHC:15245 RP No. 243 of 2025

HC-KAR

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.

7. 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 02.07.2024, is hereby set-aside;

(iii) The application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay of 1444 days in filing the income tax returns in relation to the Assessment year 2016-17 and 714 days in filing the income tax returns in relation to the Assessment year 2018-19, are hereby allowed;

(iv) The respondents are directed to accept the returns submitted by the petitioner for the aforesaid Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2018-19;

(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.”

6 -

NC: 2026:KHC:15245 RP No. 243 of 2025

HC-KAR

Heard both sides and perused the material on

record.

Learned counsel for the review petitioners/ department submits that the original income tax returns were in fact not filed by the respondent/competent authority, but by M/s.IMA and the respondent being only the legal representative and successor/representative in interest of the original assessee, the order under review has to be clarified by treating the respondent as the successor/representative in interest of the original assessee for the purpose of Income Tax Act and the application filed by the respondent under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act.

Subject to the aforesaid clarification to the aforesaid final order dated 09.04.2025, the petition stands disposed of. It is made clear that the present order is passed in the peculiar/special/unique facts and circumstances obtained in the instant case and the present

7 -

NC: 2026:KHC:15245 RP No. 243 of 2025

HC-KAR

order shall not be treated as a precedent nor shall it carry

any precedential value for any purpose whatsoever.

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

MD

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1