- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15377 WP No. 24896 of 2024 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.24896 OF 2024 (T-IT) BETWEEN: THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY FOR M/S IMA AND OTHER SCAM CASES, 3RD FLOOR, V V TOWER, PODIUM BLOCK, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS COMPETENT, AUTHORITY AND SPECIAL OFFICER, SRI AMLAN ADITYA BISWAS AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VEERESH R. BUDIHAL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES OT AND WT SECTION, ROOM NO.13, 5TH FLOOR, JEEVAN VIHAR BUILDING, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI – 110 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CIT (OSD)(OT AND WT) MISS SHASHI KAJLE. 2. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARNATAKA AND GOA, GROUND FLOOR, CR BUILDING, NO.1 QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.M.DILIP, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15377 WP No. 24896 of 2024 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER NO.F.NO.312/67/2021-OT DTD 02.07.2024 PASSED BY THE R1 VIDE ANNX- E AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned order at Annexure–E dated 02.07.2024 passed by respondent No.1, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) seeking condonation of delay of 1444 days in filing the income tax returns in relation to the Assessment Year 2016-17 and 714 days in filing the income tax returns in relation to the Assessment Year 2018-19 was rejected by 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 Years 2016-17 and 2018-19, the petitioner filed returns after the prescribed period along with the application seeking condonation of delay of 1444 days and 714 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15377 WP No. 24896 of 2024 days, respectively, in filing the returns interalia contending that the petitioner is competent authority set up for recovering the money from the financial establishments that were running Ponzi schemes and other fraudulent schemes and disburse the same to the victims of the said scheme. The Petitioner had to file a return of income based on the amount that was recovered from the aforesaid establishment and as such, due to discrepancies in valuating the exact recovery made, the petitioner had to file a revised return of income belatedly 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 contemplated in the Circular No.9/2015 dated 09.06.2015 and as such, the respondents 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. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15377 WP No. 24896 of 2024 5. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the respondents have adopted a hyper technical approach in refusing to condone the delay without appreciating that the petitioner couldn't not file the revised return of income before the expiry of the prescribed period as there was discrepancy in valuating the exact recovery made. The respondents failed to appreciate that the petitioner could not file its 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 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. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15377 WP No. 24896 of 2024 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–E dated 02.07.2024, is hereby set-aside; (iii) The application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay of 1444 days in filing the income tax returns in relation to the Assessment Year 2016-17 and 714 days in filing the income tax returns in relation to the Assessment Year 2018-19, are hereby allowed; (iv) The respondents are directed to accept the returns submitted by the petitioner for the aforesaid Assessment Years 2016-17 and 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 SV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 62