- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15383 WP No. 7851 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.7851 OF 2025 (T-IT) BETWEEN: YELIYUR MILK PRODUCERS CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED (UNDER CO-OPERATIVE SOCITY ACT, 1959) REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO MR. KESHAVA Y N, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, #348, YALIYURU VILLAGE AND POST, CHANNARAYAPATTANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL- 562110. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BALRAM R RAO, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BENGALURU -1 CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO.6(1)(1), BMTC BUILDING, GAMES VILLAGE, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU – 560 095. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. DILIP, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS OF THE PETITIONER’S CASE AND AFTER EXAMINING THE LEGALITY AND VALIDITY THEREOF BE PLEASED TO QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 119(2)(b) OF THE ACT DATED 16/12/2024 IN DIN AND ORDER NO. ITBA/COM/M/17/2024- 25/1071778180(1) (ANNX-D) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2021-22 AND ETC. 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:15383 WP No. 7851 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–D dated 16.12.2024 passed by the respondent No.1, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) seeking condonation of delay of 17 days in filing the income tax returns in relation to the Assessment Year 2021-22 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 2021-22, the petitioner filed returns after the prescribed period along with the application seeking condonation of delay of 17 days in filing the returns interalia contending that due to prevailing Covid-19 pandemic 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. It was contended that the delay in filing the I.T. returns was due to genuine hardship as - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15383 WP No. 7851 of 2025 contemplated in the Circular No.9/2015 dated 09.06.2015 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 prevailing Covid-19 pandemic, as a result of which petitioner filed I.T. returns subsequent to expiry of the prescribed period. 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 09.06.2015 and failure to appreciate this, has resulted in - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15383 WP No. 7851 of 2025 erroneous conclusion warranting interference by this Court in the present petition. 6. Under these circumstances, by adopting a 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. (ii) The impugned order at Annexure–D dated 16.12.2024 is hereby set-aside; (iii) The application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay of 17 days in filing Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Year 2021-22 is hereby allowed; (iv) The respondents are directed to accept the returns submitted by the petitioner for the aforesaid Assessment Year 2021-22; - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15383 WP No. 7851 of 2025 (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 SV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 77