Telangana High Court
M/S. Children In The Middle vs Union Of India on 14 November, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No.31041 OF 2024
ORDER:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Sujoy Paul) With the consent, finally heard.
2. Ms.Aakriti Dhawan, learned counsel representing Sri E.Venkata Siddhartha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the second respondent has committed an error in rejecting the application for condonation of delay filed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. By impugned order, dated 05.12.2023, no reasons are assigned as to why the ground taken by the petitioner did not suite the appellate authority.
3. A.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel representing on behalf of Sri A.Radha Krishna, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department, submits that although, the impugned order is passed by the second respondent from Hyderabad, the petitioner is situated at Duburi, Jajpur (Odisha). Thus, the third respondent is also stationed at Odisha. In this backdrop, the petitioner may be relegated to avail the remedy before a competent Court at Odisha. He placed reliance on the decision of a Coordinate Bench in Sri Gopalaswamy Educational Society, Siddavatam, Siddavatam Mandal, Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh, 2 India, represented by its Secretary v. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Hyderabad and another passed in WP.No.7458 of 2024. No other point is pressed.
4. We have heard the parties at length.
5. The impugned order (Annexure P.1) is, admittedly, issued from Hyderabad. Thus, at least, a minuscule part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Thus, it cannot be said that as per clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, that even a small part of cause of action has not arisen within the territory of this Court. In the case of Sri Gopalaswamy Educational Society (supra), the Coordinate Bench has thought it proper to relegate the matter before the appropriate High Court. However, a plain reading of the order shows that the matter was not examined by making a reference to Article 226 (2) of the Constitution. In the teeth of said enabling provision, it cannot be said that, this Court has no jurisdiction. Thus, we are not inclined to reject the petition on the ground of want of territorial jurisdiction.
6. The impugned order rejecting the application for condonation of delay shows that only in paragraph No.1 finding is recorded that "however, the assessee has not submitted sufficient reason which prevented the assessee from filing the same, within 3 the due date". In our considered opinion, the aforesaid finding is infact 'conclusion' arrived at by the second respondent. There is no iota of discussion in the entire order relating to the reasons assigned by the petitioner for condonation of delay in Annexures P.10 to 13. The 'reasons' are held to be heart beats of the 'conclusion'. The Apex Court in Kranthi Associates Private Limited vs. Masood Ahmed Khan 1 emphasized the need of assigning reasons in administrative, quasi-judicial and judicial orders. The appellate authority being quasi-judicial authority was obliged to assign reasons to show application of mind and to ensure transparency. In absence thereof, the impugned order cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. If paragraph Nos.3 to 7 of the impugned order is examined, it will be clear that from paragraph No.3 to 5, the learned authority has just reproduced the ratio decidendi of certain judgments. In paragraph No.6, he discussed about the judgment and principles flowing therefrom. In paragraph No.7, he mechanically recorded that in view of above reasons, the application is rejected.
7. A microscopic reading of entire order leaves no room for any doubt that there is no discussion at all on the reasons actually furnished by the petitioner in the application for condonation of delay. Thus, the impugned order deserves to be jettisoned. 1 (2010)9 SCC 496 4
8. Resultantly, the impugned order is set aside. The matter is restored in the file of the second respondent. He shall rehear the petitioner and pass a fresh order, in accordance with law.
9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, without expressing any view on the merits of the case. No costs.
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
_______________________ JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL _______________________________________ JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO 14.11.2024 nvl/ns