- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8384 WP No. 36490 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO. 36490 OF 2024 (T-IT) BETWEEN: INDIA COFFEE TRUST A REGISTERED INDIAN TRUST DEED UNDER ACT 1882, REPRESENTED BY ITS TRUSTEE SRI. ANIL BHANDARI SON OF SRI. K.L. BHANDARI AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, NO.1 C/O COFFEE BOARD OF INDIA DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANNAMALAI S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,BENGALURU-1, 5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 095. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2) (1), BANGALORE, 1ST FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 095 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. DILIP, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8384 WP No. 36490 of 2024 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 119(2)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN F.NO. 119(2)(B)PR.CIT.B-1/2018-19/24 DATED 28.03.2019 FOR AY 2012-13 AND REFERRED AS ANNEXURE A1 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT ORAL ORDER Though the matter is listed for Preliminary Hearing, the same is taken up for disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the correctness or otherwise of the order under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘1961 Act’) bearing F.No.119(2)(b)Pr.CIT.B-1/2018-19/24 dated 28.03.2019 (Annexure-A1), refusing to condone the delay in filing the revised return. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner initially filed return on 30.09.2012 in the status of Trust and second revised return was filed in the status of Association of Persons on 25.07.2013. He submits that - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8384 WP No. 36490 of 2024 thereafter, the respondent-Authorities issued intimation under Section 143(1) of 1961 Act on 25.03.2014. Respondent No.1 proceeded to consider the application of the petitioner filed under Section 119(2)(b) of 1961 Act, on the premise that second revised return is filed subsequent to issuance of intimation under Section 143(1) of 1961 Act. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had filed revised return much prior to issuance of intimation under Section 143(1) of 1961 Act on 25.03.2014. Learned counsel would further submit that the observation of respondent No.1 that Assessee has come up for condonation of delay after lapse of three years is also not proper and correct since the petitioner is well within six years time limit. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel Sri. Dilip.M., supports the order passed by respondent No.1 and prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, I am of the view that the impugned order passed under Section 119(2)(b) of 1961 Act (Annexure-A1) dated 28.03.2019 requires to be set - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8384 WP No. 36490 of 2024 aside with a direction to respondent No.1 to reconsider the application of the petitioner filed under Section 119(2)(b) of 1961 Act. 5. A perusal of the impugned order makes it abundantly clear that respondent No.1 proceeded on the premise that revised return filed by the petitioner is subsequent to intimation under Section 143(1) of 1961 Act, but it is factually not correct. Initially return was filed on 30.09.2012 and revised return was filed on 25.07.2013, whereas intimation under Section 143(1) of 1961 Act was issued much subsequently on 25.03.2014. Moreover, the impugned order also indicates that the Assessing Officer taking note of the fact that the original return was filed before the due date provided under Section 139(1) of 1961 Act, had submitted that delay in filing revised return of income could be condoned. 6. Whether the petitioner had time limit of six years to file application for condonation of delay in filing revised return in the facts and circumstances is kept open and same could be urged before respondent No.1. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8384 WP No. 36490 of 2024 7. In view of the above, the following: ORDER (a) Writ petition is allowed; (b) Impugned order at Annexure-A1 bearing F.No.119(2)(b)/Pr.CIT.B-1/2018-19/24 dated 28.03.2019 is quashed; (c) The matter is remitted back to respondent No.1 to reconsider the application of the petitioner filed under Section 119(2)(b) of 1961 Act. (d) Respondent No.1 shall consider the above application and pass appropriate order within four weeks from today. In meanwhile, the petitioner is permitted to file additional pleadings if any. SD/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE SMJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16