- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45060 WP No. 4657 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 4657 OF 2024 (T-IT) BETWEEN: MAQSOOD AHMED, AGED 49 YEARS S/O HYDER BAIG, RESIDING AT NO 38/4, SRI RAM MANDIR ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE – 560 004 PAN: CIMPM1914R …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUDHEENDRA B. R., ADVOCATE) AND: CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NROTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI – 110 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M. DILIP, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER SEC 119(2)(b) DATED 08.11.2023 BEARING F NO. 312/62/2023-OT FOR THE AY 2018-19 (ANNEXURE-G) 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 Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45060 WP No. 4657 of 2024 ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned order at Annexure-G dated 08.11.2023 passed by the respondent, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) seeking condonation of delay of 323 days in filing the income tax returns in relation to the Assessment Year 2018-19 was rejected by the respondent. 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 315 days in filing the returns interalia contending that the petitioner has erroneously filed the original return of income based on wrongful advice of an advocate and paid taxes on capital gains that never accrued and now the petitioner wishes to file a revised return of income claiming refund of taxes paid 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 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45060 WP No. 4657 of 2024 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 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 wrongful advice of an advocate, who could file the 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 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45060 WP No. 4657 of 2024 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, 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. (ii) The impugned order at Annexure-G dated 08.11.2023, is hereby set-aside; (iii) The application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay of 315 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. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45060 WP No. 4657 of 2024 (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 MDS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 30