M/S. Discovery Global Ministry vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 4075 Tel

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 4075 Tel
Judgement Date : 14 October, 2024

Telangana High Court

M/S. Discovery Global Ministry vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 14 October, 2024

           THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL

                                 AND

 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

                 WRIT PETITION No.28127 of 2024

ORDER (per Hon'ble SP,J)

Sri Shaik Jeelani Basha, learned counsel represents

Ms. Shaik Vaheeda Sushma, learned counsel for the petitioner,

Sri A.Radha Krishna, learned Senior Standing Counsel, appeared

for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri B. Mukherjee, learned counsel

representing Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor

General of India, appeared for respondent No.4.

2. With the consent finally heard.

3. The challenge mounted in this petition filed under article

226 of the Constitution is to the impugned order dated 08.08.2024

(annexure-P1), whereby application of the petitioner for

condonation of delay filed under Section 119 (2) (b) of the Income

Tax Act, 1961, has been rejected by respondent No.1. Criticizing

the said order, learned counsel for the petitioner, placed reliance on

the application for condonation of delay dated 24.04.2024

(annexure-P5) wherein the petitioner prayed for condonation of

delay and in support thereof filed medical reports. It is argued that

there is no iota of discussion on the said reason in the impugned

order. Respondent No.1 considered only the legal position and

without considering the factual matrix of the present case, rejected

the application in a mechanical manner.

4. Sri A.Radha Krishna, learned Senior Standing Counsel for

respondent Nos.1 to 3, supported the impugned order and

submitted that the impugned order contains sufficient legal basis

and does not require any interference.

5. No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the

parties.

6. A careful reading of the application filed by the petitioner

for condonation of delay shows that in column 14, he mentioned

that delay of 35 days is because of "due to medical health issue"

and in support thereof filed medical reports. A microscopic reading

of the impugned order shows that respondent No.1 has considered

the judgments of the Supreme Court and other High Courts on the

question of condonation of delay. What is missing is the

consideration on the reasons assigned by the petitioner about the

delay of 35 days. While considering an application for condonation

of delay, the authority is required to apply its mind on the facts of a

particular case to determine whether the delay is properly

explained and whether it constitutes "sufficient cause". In absence

thereof, mere reproduction of judgments of the Courts and without

considering the facts of a particular case is of no use.

7. The reasons are held to be heartbeat of conclusions. In

absence of reasons, conclusions cannot sustain judicial scrutiny.

We find substance in the argument of learned counsel for the

petitioner that there is no iota of discussion and finding in the

impugned order as to why the reasons given by the petitioner,

supported by the medical reports, are not to be treated as

trustworthy. Thus, the impugned order, in our opinion, cannot

sustain judicial scrutiny.

8. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 08.08.2024, is set

aside. The application for condonation of delay is revived and

respondent No.1 shall rehear the petitioner and pass a fresh order

in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court has not