Sandesh Savio Lobo Vs ITO (Karnataka High Court)
Summary: Karnataka High Court allowed the writ petition of Sandesh Savio Lobo and quashed the order dated 27 February 2026 rejecting his application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for condonation of delay in filing the Income Tax Return for Assessment Year 2024-25. The petitioner explained that after a short visit to India he had returned to Canada, where his wife encountered an unexpected medical emergency during the last term of her pregnancy and their child was born.
The Revenue had rejected the request essentially on the ground that the return could have been filed online even while the petitioner was outside India and that genuine hardship had not been established. The High Court observed that the authority had considered the possibility of online filing but failed to consider two material circumstances: the medical emergency faced by the petitioner’s wife during the last term of pregnancy and the fact that the condonation application was filed within only 28 days from the last date.
The Court held that the authority had mechanically extracted propositions concerning hardship without examining them in the factual context. Finding that the petitioner had made out a case for condonation of delay and that material circumstances had been overlooked, the High Court quashed the impugned order and permitted the petitioner to file the ITR within three months from the date of the Court’s order.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
The petitioner’s grievance is with the third respondent’s Order dated 27.02.2026 [Annexure-C] under Section 119[2][b] of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short, ‘the Act’]. The petitioner’s request for condonation of delay in filing the Income Tax Returns [ITR] for the Assessment Year 2024-25 is rejected essentially observing that the petitioner could have filed ITR online even if he was residing outside India at the relevant time and that he has not made out a case genuine of hardship.
Sri. Prasanna B M, the learned counsel for the petitioner, inviting this Court’s attention to the impugned order, submits that:
[A] The petitioner is categorical in stating that he was in India on 12.06.2023 only for a short visit and that he returned back to Canada and his wife encountered an unexpected medical emergency in the last term of pregnancy.
[B] the child was born in Canada and as such the petitioner could not file ITR before 31.12.2024, but he has filed an application on 27.01.2025 for condonation of delay.
Sri. M Dilip, the learned counsel for the Revenue is heard.
The third respondent has considered the possibility of the petitioner filing ITR online but has not considered two facts that are material. fiJ The petitioner’s case that his wife faced a medical emergency in the last term of her pregnancy and that the child is born while the doctors were attending to such emergency. fiiJ The application for condonation of delay is filed within twenty-eight [28] days from the last date. The third respondent has mechanically extracted the propositions on the significance of hardship without examining the same in the factual context. This Court is of the view that the petitioner has made out a case for condonation of delay, and the third respondent has erred in overlooking material circumstances. Hence, the following.
ORDER
The petition is allowed quashing the third respondent’s impugned Order dated 27.02.2026 [Annexure-C] permitting the petitioner to file ITR within three [3] months from today.
