Karnataka HC allows condonation of delay for belated return due to son’s death

Abdul Rehaman Vs PCIT (Karnataka High Court)

Karnataka HC allows condonation of delay for belated return due to son’s death — directs CPC to process ITR

The Petitioner, Abdul Rehaman, aged 55, resident of Mangaluru, filed this writ petition seeking to quash the rejection order dated 12.07.2023 passed u/s 119(2)(b) by the PCIT, Panaji, refusing to condone delay in filing his return of income for AY 2022-23, & prayed for a direction to the CPC, Bengaluru, to process his belated return filed on 29.12.2022.

It was undisputed that the Petitioner did not file his ITR within the prescribed due date of 31.07.2022 & subsequently submitted a condonation petition on 24.04.2023. PCIT rejected the request, holding that no sufficient cause was established.

Before the Court, the Petitioner represented by Sri. Sachin S. Nayak, Advocate, explained that the delay was occasioned due to the tragic demise of his son in a motor accident, & he was involved in related proceedings before this very Court in a Motor Accident Claim case (order dated 17.08.2021).

Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar noted that the Petitioner had set out valid, reasonable, & bona fide reasons demonstrating genuine hardship as contemplated under CBDT Circular dated 09.06.2015 governing powers u/s 119(2)(b).

Adopting a justice-oriented approach, the Court held that the rejection order reflected non-application of mind & that such circumstances merited condonation of delay to avoid injustice. Accordingly, the delay was condoned, & the petition allowed.

Held

• Writ Petition allowed.
• Impugned order dated 12.07.2023 passed u/s 119(2)(b) set aside.
• Application for condonation of delay in filing ITR for AY 2022-23 allowed.
• Respondents directed to accept & process the return filed on 29.12.2022.
• Department at liberty to verify the Petitioner’s claims & proceed in accordance with law.

This judgment reiterates that Section 119(2)(b) must be interpreted liberally to alleviate genuine hardship. When a taxpayer demonstrates a bona fide reason—particularly a personal tragedy such as loss of a family member—procedural timelines cannot override substantive justice. Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar’s decision thus underscores that tax administration must be compassionate as well as lawful.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

In this petition, the petitioner seeks following reliefs:

(a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the order under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 12.07.2023 issued by the Respondent No.2 for the Assessment Year 2022-23 bearing F No.12/119(2)(b)/Pr.CIT-PNJ/2023-24 which is enclosed as Annexure-H.

(b) Issue a writ of mandamus or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus to direct the Respondent No.5 for processing the return of Income filed on 29.12.2022 by the Petitioner which is enclosed as Annexure-E1.

(c) And pass such other orders as this Honourable Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity including awarding of cost of this petition.

2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in relation to the Assessment Year 2022-23, the petitioner did not file income-tax returns within the due date i.e., 31.07.2022 and filed returns on 29.12.2022 and also filed application dated 24.04.2023 seeking condonation of delay in filing the returns. The said application having been considered by the respondents who proceeded to pass impugned order at Annexure-H dated 12.07.2023 rejecting the said application under Section 119(2)(b) of Income Tax Act, and as such, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

3. A perusal of the material on record, in particular the application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner will indicate that the valid submissions, grounds and reasons have been made out and assigned by the petitioner, who has specifically contended that the belated filing of the returns was due to an order dated 17.08.2021 passed by this Court in a motor vehicle accident case pertaining to the demise of his son. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that a case of reasonable cause and genuine hardship has been made out by the petitioner in terms of the Circular dated 09.06.2015 issued by the respondent.

4. 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.

5. In the result, I pass the following:

O R D E R

(i) The petition is hereby allowed.

(ii) The impugned order at Annexure–H dated 12.07.2023, is hereby set-aside;

(iii) The application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay in filing Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Year 2022-23, is hereby allowed;

(iv) The respondents are directed to accept the returns submitted by the petitioner for the aforesaid Assessment Year 2022-23;

(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.