Case Law Details
Century Joint Developments Pvt. Ltd. Vs Central Board of Direct Taxes (Karnataka High Court)
In Century Joint Developments Pvt. Ltd. Vs Central Board of Direct Taxes, the Karnataka High Court condoned a 2-hour and 38-minute delay in filing income tax returns (ITR) for the Assessment Year 2019-20, citing genuine hardship faced by the petitioner. The petitioner sought to quash the order issued under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which had rejected the request for condonation of delay. The court found that the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) had adopted a hyper-technical approach in denying the condonation, despite the petitioner’s valid explanation based on the Circular No. 9/2015, which provides for relief under genuine hardship. Additionally, the court ruled that the CBDT’s subsequent intimation refusing the petitioner’s request was without jurisdiction and authority, leading to its quashing. The court ordered that the delay be condoned and directed the tax authorities to process the petitioner’s tax return in accordance with the law. This ruling emphasized a more practical and considerate approach to minor delays in filing tax returns when genuine reasons are provided.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:
“a. Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated:-05.03.2024 passed by first respondents F.NO.312/84/2020-OT produced as Annexure-E and consequently condoned the delay in filing the return of 2 hours 38 Minutes and 28 seconds
b. Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the intimation dated 19.08.2020 passed by fifth respondents bearing no. CPC/1920/A6/2003013599 Produced as Annexure- B and consequently permit carry forward of loss.
c. Issue such other Writ or direction as this Hon’ble Court deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”
2. In addition to reiterating the contentions urged in the present petition, learned Senior Counsel invited my attention to the impugned order dated 05.03.2024 passed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in order to contend that the respondents committed gracious/serious error in refusing to condone the extremely small/short delay of 2 Hours 38 Minutes and 26 Seconds in filing the Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Year 2019-20. It is submitted that having come to the conclusion that the petitioner was not entitled for condonation of delay, the first respondent further erred in issuing the impugned intimation, which also deserves to be quashed.
3. Per contra, learned AGA submits that there is no merits in the present petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
4. As rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order passed by the first respondent refusing to consider the extremely short/small delay of 2 Hours 38 Minutes and 26 Seconds by adopting a hyper technical approach is clearly contrary to the material on record without appreciating the specific contention of the petitioner that he could not file the Income Tax Returns on account of genuine hardship as contemplated in the Circular dated 09.06.2015 bearing No.9/2015 and also the provisions of Section 119 (2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is also relevant to state that having come to the conclusion that the petitioner was not entitled for condonation of delay, the first respondent did not have jurisdiction or authority of law to issue impugned intimation at Annexure-B, which consequently deserves to be quashed and the delay in filing the returns deserves to be condoned and necessary directions to be issued to the respondents.
5. In the result, I pass the following
ORDER
(i) Petition is hereby allowed;
(ii) Impugned intimation dated 19.08.2020 and impugned order dated 05.03.2024 issued/passed by the first respondent are hereby quashed;
(iii) The delay in filing the Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Year 2019-2020 stands condoned; and
(iv) Respondents is directed to process the income tax returns submitted by the petitioner and proceed further in accordance with law.
Author Bio
