Orissa High Court
M/S. Joharimal High School vs The Principal Commissioner Of .... ... on 5 April, 2025
Author: B.P. Routray
Bench: B.P. Routray
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.3183 of 2025
M/s. Joharimal High School, Cuttack .... Petitioner
Represented by Adv.-
Mr. Bijay Panda, Advocate
-Versus-
The Principal Commissioner of .... Opposite Parties
Income Tax (Exemptions),
Hyderabad and others
Represented by Adv.-
Mr. S.C. Mohanty, Senior Standing Counsel
Mr. A. Kedia, Junior Standing Counsel
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
Order No. 05.04.2025
01. 1. This is a second round of litigation before this Court at the
behest of the petitioner raising a grievance relating to a decision of
the authority in condoning the delay in filing Form-10B under
Section-119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act.
2. The earlier rejection was founded upon the technical issue
having raised by the authority that instead of submission in Form-
10B, it was filed under Form-10BB. The said order was assailed
before this Court and by an order dated 27th August, 2024, the writ
petition was disposed of directing the authority to treat such
application to have been filed under Form-10B and proceed to
decide the matter. By the impugned order, the authority has refused
to condone the delay taking into account that the explanation
offered occasioning the delay is not satisfactory, more particularly,
it is obligatory on the part of the assesse to explain the delay on
day-to-day basis.
3. We are not unmindful of the proposition of law that the
purpose of incorporating the provision relating to a limitation is to
avoid any delayed application and to bring certainty into an
adjudicatory process. It is to give quietest to an issue in relation to
a dormant and lethargic litigant/assesse who should not approach
the authorities at their sweet will, that too, after an inordinate delay
having caused. Equally, we cannot overlook that the statute
bestowed power upon the authority to condone the delay provided
the person approaching such authority provides a satisfactory
explanation resulted into filing of the delayed application or in this
case, Form-10B. It is no doubt that unless there is such satisfactory
explanation offered by the assesse, the authority cannot condone
the delay simpliciter on the ipse dixit of the prayer made in the said
application.
4. The assesse must give a sufficient explanation which is
reasonable, plausible and constitute a sufficient cause to exercise
the powers conferred under the statue. It is not necessary that the
day-to-day explanation is required, but there must be a continuity
of the events which on a meaningful reading thereof would
complete the chain of the events, provided it comes within the
ambit of "sufficient cause" appearing in the statutory provisions.
5. Neither the Court nor the authority should take up
pedantic approach in finding out the fault in an application for
condonation of delay with an intent to achieve the dismissal
thereof, but must adopt a liberal and justice oriented approach so
that the justice may be imparted and the issue raised is decided on
merit.
6. It appears to us that the authority has taken a stricter view
and without adverting to the explanation offered has proceeded on
the basis of the ratio of law called out from the various judgment
of the apex Court. The law has to be applied not in an adjunct
manner, but in the perspective of the context, i.e., the facts
involved therein as each fact cannot be equated with the other facts
and, therefore, a pragmatic approach is required in relation to an
application for condonation of delay.
7. We, after looking into the explanation so offered and the
fact that initially the petitioner approach this Court against the
decision of the authority taken on the basis of the technicalities and
the reasons which occasioned the delay, are satisfied that the
petitioner was prevented by a sufficient cause in not filing the said
Form within the statutory period provided therefor. We do not find
any fetter on the part of the authority in condoning the delay as no
outer cap is fixed in the statutory provision and, therefore, the
authority ought to have condoned the delay instead of dismissing
the Form on the anvil of limitation.
8. The order impugned in this writ petition is hereby set
aside. As a consequence whereof, the application for condonation
of delay filed before the authority stands allowed.
9. The authority is directed to consider the Form-10B under
Section-119 (2)(b) of the Income Tax Act on merit and it is
expected that the said authority would decide the issue after
providing the reasons in accordance with law within two months
from the date of communication of this order.
10. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
(Harish Tandon)
Chief Justice
(B.P. Routray)
Judge
S.K. Guin/PA
A. Nanda
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 07-Apr-2025 19:12:36
