Central Board of Direct Taxes Vs Century Joint Developments Pvt. Ltd. (Karnataka High Court)
ITR Filing Delay of Just Over Two Hours: Karnataka High Court Rejects Revenue’s Hyper-Technical Approach
Introduction
The Karnataka High Court has upheld the condonation of a delay of 2 hours, 38 minutes and 26 seconds in filing an income-tax return, rejecting the Revenue’s challenge to relief granted to M/s Century Joint Developments Pvt. Ltd.
The Division Bench of Justice S.G. Pandit and Justice Dr. Chillakur Sumalatha held that the minimal delay, the technical difficulty pleaded by the assessee and the absence of an intention to avoid filing the return justified the relief.
The judgment was delivered on 15 October 2026 in Writ Appeal No. 1317 of 2024, bearing neutral citation 2026:KHC:58216-DB. The decision concerns the application of Section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to the circumstances of the delayed filing.
Background of the Dispute
The dispute related to the assessee’s original return of income for Assessment Year 2019-20. The return was filed after the prescribed deadline by precisely 2 hours, 38 minutes and 26 seconds.
The assessee sought condonation of the delay, explaining that a technical glitch had affected filing. However, the request was rejected by an order dated 5 March 2024.
The assessee approached the High Court in Writ Petition No. 10948 of 2024, challenging that rejection and an intimation dated 19 August 2020.
By an order dated 23 April 2024, the Single Judge allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned intimation and rejection order, and condoned the delay. The Revenue challenged that decision through the present writ appeal.
Revenue Alleged Repeated Filing Defaults
Before the Division Bench, the Revenue argued that the assessee was a habitual defaulter in filing income-tax returns.
Its counsel submitted that returns had not been filed for three successive assessment years. On that basis, the Revenue maintained that the Assessing Officer was justified in refusing to condone the delay for Assessment Year 2019-20.
The appeal therefore sought reversal of the Single Judge’s decision by relying on the assessee’s alleged past compliance failures.
The Division Bench recorded this submission but found that the Revenue had not established grounds warranting interference with the relief granted in the present case.
Single Judge Found the Approach Hyper-Technical
The Division Bench noted that the Single Judge had treated the delay as very minimal.
The Single Judge had also characterised the Assessing Officer’s approach as hyper-technical and clearly contrary to the material on record.
This finding was relevant because the dispute was not merely whether the return had crossed the deadline. The authorities were considering an application seeking relief from that delay, supported by an explanation concerning technical difficulty.
The Division Bench examined whether the refusal to condone was justified in light of the statutory provision and the circumstances placed before the authorities.
Section 119(2)(b) and Genuine Hardship
The Court explained that Section 119(2)(b) authorises the authorities specified under the provision to admit an application or claim for an exemption, deduction, refund or other relief after expiry of the prescribed period.
Once admitted, the application or claim can be dealt with on merits in accordance with law.
The Court identified examination of the genuine hardship pleaded by the applicant as the relevant precondition for admitting such an application.
Its reasoning thus focused on whether the explanation and circumstances justified condonation, rather than treating the missed deadline as sufficient by itself to reject the request.
Technical Glitch and Minimal Delay Were Material
The assessee’s application stated that a technical glitch had caused the difficulty.
The departmental reply indicated that the department could not provide comments on the glitch encountered by the assessee. The Court considered this response alongside the exceptionally short duration of the delay.
The Division Bench emphasised that the delay was not measured in days, months or years, but only in hours, minutes and seconds.
In these circumstances, it held that the Assessing Officer ought not to have rejected the condonation application. The Court also expressly found that the assessee had no intention to avoid filing the return for the relevant assessment year.
These findings supported the conclusion that the Single Judge’s order required no interference.
Revenue’s Writ Appeal Rejected
The Division Bench held that the Revenue had failed to make out any ground to disturb the Single Judge’s decision.
Accordingly, the writ appeal was rejected, and the pending interlocutory applications were disposed of. The condonation granted by the Single Judge therefore remained undisturbed.
The judgment does not determine the correctness of any particular exemption, deduction, refund or other substantive tax claim. Its operative effect concerns the condonation of the filing delay, rather than an adjudication of the return’s contents.
Conclusion
The decision illustrates the importance of examining genuine hardship, the explanation offered and the extent of delay when considering relief under Section 119(2)(b).
On the facts before it, the Karnataka High Court upheld condonation because the delay was minimal, technical difficulty had been pleaded, and there was no intention to avoid filing. The Revenue’s allegation of earlier defaults did not persuade the Court to overturn that relief.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Heard learned counsel Sri.E.I.Sanmathi for the appellants-revenue and perused the material on record.
2. The appellants-revenue is before this Court aggrieved by the order dated 23.04.2024 in Writ Petition No.10948/2024, whereunder the respondent’s writ petition is allowed quashing the impugned intimation dated 19.08.2020 and impugned order dated 05.03.2024 refusing to condone delay of 2 Hours, 38 Minutes and 26 Seconds in filing the original return of income for assessment year 2019-2020.
3. Learned counsel Sri.E.I.Sanmathi would submit that respondent-assessee is a habitual defaulter in filing return of income and further he submits that he has not filed return of income for 3 successive assessment years. Therefore, the Assessing Officer is justified in rejecting the prayer of the respondent-assessee for condoning the delay of 2 Hours, 38 Minutes and 26 Seconds in filing the return of income for the assessment year 2019-2020.
4. Learned Single Judge under impugned order, condoned the delay and set aside the order dated 05.03.2024 and while condoning the delay has observed that the delay is very minimal and the approach of the Assessing Officer is hyper-technical and clearly contrary to the material on record.
5. Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 authorizes the authorities specified therein to admit an application or claim for any exemption, deduction, refund or any other relief under the Act, after the expiry of the period specified by or under the Act for making such application or claim and deal with the same on merits in accordance with law. Only the precondition for admitting such application is to examine the genuine hardship pleaded by the party.
6. In the instant case, the application of the respondent-assessee indicates that there was a technical glitch and the departmental reply would indicate that it cannot provide any comments on the glitch encountered by the respondent-assessee. When the delay is very minimal of 2 Hours, 38 Minutes and 26 Seconds, the Assessing Officer ought not to have rejected the application for condonation of delay. The delay is not in days, months or years, it is only 2 Hours, 38 Minutes and 26 Seconds. There is no intention of the respondent-assessee to avoid filing of return of income for the assessment year 2019-2020. In the said circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the appellants-revenue has not made out any ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
7. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands rejected.
In view of disposal of the main appeal, pending interlocutory applications stand disposed of.
