Prl. Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Shree Guru Nithyananda Souharda ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 67 Kant

                              1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 4TH 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.4018 OF 2019 (T-IT)

BETWEEN:

1.     PRL.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
       AAYAKAR BHAVAN
       C.R.BUILDING
       N.G.ROAD, ATTAVARA
       MANGALURU-565 001.

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

3.     INCOME-TAX OFFICER
       WARD-2
       AAYAKAR BHAVAN
       ADI-UDUPI MALPE ROAD
       UDUPI-576 103.
                                          ... APPELLANTS

(BY SRI: E.I.SANMATHI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SHREE GURU NITHYANANDA SOUHARDA
CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE LTD.,
NAVUNDA, BYNDOOR
BYNDOOR TALUK
UDUPI DISTRICT-576 224.
                                2



REPRESENTED BY ITS C.E.O.
MRS.POOJA T POOJARY.
                                               ... 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 19.9.2019 IN WRIT PETITION NO.29582 OF
2019 (T-IT) PASSED BY THE HON'BLE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE.

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

                      JUDGMENT

The legality and correctness of the order passed by

the learned single Judge in W.P.No.29582/2019, dated

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

2. 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

17/06/2019, bearing No.146/119(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

17/06/2019, appellant No.1 preferred the writ petition.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent supported

the order impugned in this appeal.

6. 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.

7. 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, pending applications, if any, stand disposed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

*bgn/-