- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39809 WP No. 23304 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 23304 OF 2025 (T-IT) BETWEEN: B. N. SRINIVAS REDDY, S/O NYATHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS NO. 352, 10TH CROSS, 29TH A MAIN HSR LAYOUT 1ST SECTOR BENGALURU - 560 102 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHREEHARI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU 02, BENGALURU AN AUTHORITY UNDER SECTION 116, OF THE INCOME ACT 1961, BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 095 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, WARD 4(3)(2)M BENGALURU, BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU KARNATAKA - 560 095 3. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE A CENTRE DESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 144B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, ROOM NO 401, 2ND FLOOR, E RAMP, JAWARHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, DELHI - 110 003 REP. BY PR. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (NEAC) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39809 WP No. 23304 of 2025 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 119(2)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DATED 30.04.2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2022-23 AND BEARING THE DIN NO. ITBA/COM/F/17/2025-26/1075897087(1) WHICH IS ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE - G AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, 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 – G dated 30.04.2025 passed by the respondent No.1, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 seeking condonation of delay of 326 days in filing the Form 68 in relation to the Assessment Year 2022-23 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 2022-23, the petitioner filed Form 68 after the prescribed period along with the application seeking condonation of delay of 326 days in filing Form 68 interalia - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39809 WP No. 23304 of 2025 contending that the Tax-consultant of the petitioner was of the assumption that form 68 should be filed manually and hence made the said compliance manually before the Assessing Officer on 14.05.2024. Subsequently, when an Order under section 270A of the Act was passed and the petitioner approached his tax- consultant top file an appeal under section 264 of the Act realised that Form 68 should be filed online and not manually. Realizing the said defect, the petitioner filed the said Form 68 online on 12.03.2024. It was contended that the delay in filing Form 68 was due to genuine hardship as contemplated in the Circular No.9/2015 dated 09.06.2015 and as such, the first 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. Though several contentions have been urged by both sides as regards to the petitioner not having filed Form 68 in requisite manner within the due date and his inability and omission - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39809 WP No. 23304 of 2025 to file the said Form within due date in a requisite manner is a matter of record so also the fact that the petitioner in his application under section 119(2)(b) hasn't brought to the notice of the first respondent regarding the filing of form 68 manually on 14.05.2024 which falls within the due date. 6. 6. Under these circumstances, having regard to the specific assertion on the part of the petitioner that his inability and omission to file Form 68 in requisite manner within due date was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, I deem it just and appropriate to adopt a justice oriented approach and remit the matter back to the first respondent or reconsideration of the matter afresh in accordance with law by setting aside the impugned order dated 30.04.2025. 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 30.04.2025, is hereby set-aside; - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39809 WP No. 23304 of 2025 (iii) The matter is remitted back to the first respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law from the stage of considering the application dated 14.03.2025 filed by the petitioner under section 119(2)(b) of the IT Act. (iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit replies, pleadings, documents etc., which shall be considered by the first respondent who shall provide sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and hear them and proceed further in accordance with law. (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.: 14