- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10778 WP No. 4023 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 4023 OF 2025 (T-RES) BETWEEN: M/S. CHANDRA VIVIDODDESHA SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITHA, MULTI PURPOSE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI. NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, CA SITE NO.04, 2ND CROSS, 1ST STAGE, 2ND PHASE, CHANDRA LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 040. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. R. RAMA MURTHY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE – 1, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(2)(1), BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 8TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE - 560 095. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. THIRUMALESH, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A. QUASHING THE ORDER OF THE RESPONDENT PASSED U/S 119(2)(B) OF THE ACT DATED:27-12-2024 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19 VIDE DIN ITBA/COM/F/ /COM/M/17/2024-25/1071777670(1) (ANNEXURE-J) AND CONDONE THE DELAY IN FLING THE RETURN OF INCOME. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10778 WP No. 4023 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned order at Annexure–J dated 27th December, 2024 passed by the respondent No.1, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) seeking condonation of delay of 147 days in filing the income tax returns in relation to the Assessment Year 2018-19 was rejected by the respondent No.1. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in relation to the aforesaid Assessment Year 2018-19, the petitioner filed returns after the prescribed period along with the application seeking condonation of delay of 147 days in filing the returns interalia contending that the petitioner was in the process of shifting from manual to computerization of all the records including the accounts of the petitioner. Also the Petitioner’s contention that it was not aware of the introduction of Section 80AC of the IT Act which came to effect from 01.04.2018 restricting the Petitioner from entitling various allowances to the returns filed beyond the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10778 WP No. 4023 of 2025 prescribed period of 139(1) of the IT Act and owing to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, the petitioner was not in a position to file the returns within the prescribed period and claim deductions under Section 80P of the IT Act. It was contended that the delay in filing the I.T. returns was due to genuine hardship as contemplated in the Circular No.13/2023 dated 26.07.2023 and as such, the respondent committed an error in rejecting the application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) of the I.T.Act, which deserves to be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-Revenue would support the impugned order and submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the respondents have adopted hyper technical approach in refusing to condone the delay without appreciating that the inability and omission on the part of the petitioner to file I.T. returns within the prescribed period was due to the reason that the Petitioner was in the process of shifting from manual to computerization of all the records including the accounts of the petitioner. Also the Petitioner - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10778 WP No. 4023 of 2025 was not aware of the introduction of Section 80AC of the IT Act which came to effect from 01.04.2018 restricting the Petitioner from entitling various allowances to the returns filed beyond the prescribed period of 139(1) of the IT Act. The respondents failed to appreciate that the petitioner could not file his I.T. returns within the prescribed period on account of bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, which clearly constituted genuine hardship on the part of the petitioner/assessee as contemplated in the said Circular dated 26.07.2023 and failure to appreciate this, has resulted in erroneous conclusion warranting interference by this Court in the present petition. 6. Under these circumstances, adopting justice oriented approach and having regard to valid and sufficient ground pleaded by the petitioner in support of his claim for condonation of delay, I deem it just and appropriate to set-aside the impugned order and condone the delay in filing the returns by the petitioner by allowing the application filed by the petitioner. 7. In the result, I pass the following: O R D E R (i) The petition is hereby allowed. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10778 WP No. 4023 of 2025 (ii) The impugned order at Annexure–J dated 27th December, 2024, is hereby set-aside; (iii) The application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay of 147 days in filing Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Year 2018-19, is hereby allowed; (iv) The respondents are directed to accept the returns submitted by the petitioner for the aforesaid Assessment Year 2018-19; (v) It is needless to state that respondents are at liberty to verify the claim of the petitioner and proceed further in accordance with law. SD/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE BMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 93 CT:SK