Thursday, 14, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Silicon Institute Of Technology vs Commissioner Of Income Tax
2025 Latest Caselaw 3609 Ori

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 3609 Ori
Judgement Date : 4 February, 2025

Orissa High Court

Silicon Institute Of Technology vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 4 February, 2025

Author: Arindam Sinha
Bench: Arindam Sinha, M.S. Sahoo
       IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                           W.P.(C) No. 2555 of 2025


Silicon Institute of Technology, BBSR                  ....                 Petitioner

                                      -Versus-

Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar                    ....         Opposite Parties
Bhavan, Hyderabad, Telangana and
another



Advocates appeared in this case:

For Petitioner                : Mr. S.S. Padhy, Advocate

For Opposite Parties          : Mr. A. Kedia, Junior Standing Counsel

CORAM:

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA,
                 ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
                          AND
           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO

                          JUDGMENT

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of hearing and judgment: 4th February, 2025

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ARINDAM SINHA, ACJ.

1. Mr. Padhi, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and

submits, his client is a trust duly registered under the provisions in

Income Tax Act, 1961. It is exempted from paying income tax. It is

required to file audit report.

2. His client was late by 1 hour, 19 minutes and 16 seconds in

uploading the audit report. It was not accepted as application for

condonation of delay stood rejected by impugned order dated 4 th

December, 2024 made by the authority. He draws attention to the order

and submits, purported reason given is, on verification it was noticed

that reasons mentioned for delay are not sufficient and it was not a fit

case for condoning delay in exercise of power under section 119 (2) (b)

of the Act read with provisions of circular dated 9 th June, 2015 issued

by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). He seeks interference.

3. Mr. Kedia, learned advocate, Junior Standing Counsel appears on

behalf of revenue. He prays for adjournment to obtain instruction.

4. The authority considered reason given by petitioner for the delay

to be mere asking on the basis of vague assertion without proof.

Required proof, therefore, is reason for technical glitch causing delay in

uploading the report. The delay is of 1 hour, 19 minutes and 16

seconds. The report stood uploaded beyond midnight of the last date, at

1:19 and 16 seconds in the following morning of 1st November, 2023.

WPC no.2555 of 2025

5. The authority, in impugned order, relied upon view taken by the

Delhi High Court in the case of M/s. BU. Bhandari Nandgude Patil

Associates [W.P.(C) no. 6537 of 2017], inter alia on the passage

reproduced below.

"Statutory time limits fixed have to be adhered to as it ensures timely completion of assessments. Discipline on regarding filing of returns have to be complied and respected, time limits unless compelling and good reasons are shown and established for grant of extension of time. Extension of time cannot be claimed as a vested right on mere asking and on the basis of vague assertions without proof."

6. We appreciate petitioner may have been very close to the

deadline in attempting to upload the report. It may have been a

situation, where the pressure of meeting the timeline expiring in a few

hours or minutes, there may have been mistakes made in uploading,

attributed by petitioner as technical glitch. Even assuming such was the

case, the report stood uploaded beyond midnight of the last date by 1

hour, 19 minutes and 16 seconds. There has to be pragmatic approach

in exercising power to enlarge time. Here the time overrun over is a

little more than an hour, on the report uploaded in the wee hours of the

WPC no.2555 of 2025 next day, 1st November, 2023. We cannot imagine the delay would have

hampered work of revenue in dealing with the report.

7. For reasons aforesaid, it is clear to us that impugned order is

perverse. As such we have dealt with the writ petition without granting

adjournment.

8. Impugned order is set aside and quashed. The report filed in

Form 10B be considered as compliance by petitioner.

9. The writ petition is disposed of.

( Arindam Sinha ) Acting Chief Justice

( M.S. Sahoo ) Judge

Arun Mishra

Designation: ADR-Cum-Addl. Principal Secretary

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack

WPC no.2555 of 2025

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter