Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.Navanidhi Vividhoddesha
2021 Latest Caselaw 58 Kant

                          -1-


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

                         PRESENT

        THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA

                           AND

            THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G. UMA

           WRIT APPEAL No.4020/2019 (T-IT)

BETWEEN:

1.     PRL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
       AAYAKAR BHAVAN,
       C.R. BUILDING, N.G. ROAD,
       ATTAVARA, MANGALURU - 575 001.

2.     DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
       CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTRE,
       BENGALURU - 560 500.

3.     INCOME TAX OFFICER
       WARD-2,
       AAYAKAR BHAVAN, ATTAVARA,
       MANGALURU - 575 001.                ... APPELLANTS

(BY SMT. SANMATHI E.I., ADVOCATE)

AND:

M/S. NAVANIDHI VIVIDHODDESHA
SAHAKARA SANGHA LTD.,
UJJODI, GORIGUDDE, MANGALURU,
D.K. DISTRICT - 575 002.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
C.E.O. MS. PRATHIBHA.                     ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI MAHESH R. UPPIN, ADVOCATE)

       THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 19/09/2019 IN WRIT PETITION NO.29110/2019
(T-IT) PASSED BY THE HON'BLE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE.
                              -2-


      THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-


                       JUDGMENT

Though there is a delay of forty seven days in filing

this appeal, we have, nevertheless, heard Sri Sanmathi

E.I., learned counsel for the appellants on the merits of the

matter.

2. The legality and correctness of the order

passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.29110/2019,

dated 19/09/2019 is called in question in this intra-Court

appeal.

3. Briefly stated the facts are that the respondent

herein had filed the writ petition seeking a writ in the

nature of certiorari by quashing order dated 21/06/2019,

bearing No.121/119(2)(b)/Pr.CIT/MNG/2019-20, passed

by respondent No.1 in the writ petition/appellant No.1

herein namely, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax,

Mangaluru. By the said order, appellant No.1 herein

refused to condone the delay and rejected the application

filed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961

(hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for the sake of

brevity). Consequently, the delay in filing the return of

income for the relevant Assessment Year (2018-19) was

not taken into consideration for being processed. Being

aggrieved by the order dated 21/06/2019, appellant No.1

preferred the writ petition.

4. Learned single Judge, who heard the writ

petition along with other similar matters, has referred to

the decision of the Delhi High Court, passed in Fibrefill

Engineers vs. CIT [(2017) 177 TTJ 556 (Del.),

wherein it has been held that on the aspect of delay,

genuine hardship would have to be considered before

condoning the delay and discretion has to be exercised in

genuine cases of hardship and accordingly, exercising his

discretion, learned single Judge held that application

seeking condonation of delay in filing the returns has to be

reconsidered.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants contended

that the learned single Judge was not right in exercising

discretion in favour of the respondent herein. That for the

assessment year 2018-19, there was a delay in filing the

returns. Therefore, the respondent could not also claim

the deduction under Section 80P of the Act. Appellant

No.1 herein has rightly rejected the application filed under

Section 119(2)(b) of the Act, but the learned single Judge

has set aside the said order and has remanded the matter

to respondent No.3 for re-examination of the said

application pertaining to condonation of delay in filing the

returns for the assessment year 2018-19. Learned counsel

for the appellants further contended that if at all the

matter was to be remanded, it ought to have been

remanded to appellant No.1 herein, who was respondent

No.1 in the writ petition and not to respondent No.3 in the

writ petition. Therefore, this appeal would call for

interference even though there is a delay of forty-seven

days in filing the appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent supported

the order impugned in this appeal.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the

appellants and on perusal of the impugned order of the

learned single Judge as well as the order of appellant

No.1/respondent No.1 in the writ petition passed under

Section 119(2)(b) of the Act, we find that the learned

single Judge was right in setting aside the said order and

remanding the matter. However, while remanding the

matter, the same ought to have been remanded to

respondent No.1 in the writ petition i.e., appellant No.1

herein. Therefore, with the aforesaid modification of the

impugned order, the appeal stands disposed.

8. Since a time frame of three months from the

date of receipt of the certified copy of the impugned order

was granted by the learned single Judge to complete the

reconsideration of the application filed by the respondent

herein seeking condonation of delay in filing the returns,

we now extend the said time by three months from the

date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.

In view of disposal of the appeal in the aforesaid

terms, the delay of forty-seven days in filing the appeal is

ignored. I.A.No.2/2020 is disposed.

Consequently, I.A.No.1/2020 also stands disposed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

S*