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,
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
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.
(2010)9 SCC 496
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
