- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51483 WP No. 6292 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 6292 OF 2024 (T-IT) BETWEEN: KARNATAKA SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROMOTION SOCIETY ESTABLISHMENT UNDER THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT 1960, HAVING OFFICE AT NO. 24/2, VIJNANA BHAVANA, 3RD FLOOR, NEAR BDA COMPLEX, 21ST MAIN, BHANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 070 REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. PAVAN KUMAR MALAPATI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 2ND FLOOR, C.R. BUILDING, 1 QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 2ND FLOOR, C.R. BUILDING, 1 QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51483 WP No. 6292 of 2024 3. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 7(2)(4), BENGALURU KARNATAKA - 560 095. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. THIRUMALESH, ADVOCATE) *** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITTUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 17.11.2022 PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 119(2)(B) OF THE ACT REJECTING THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME BEARING NO.F NO.45/CONDONATION OF DELAY/CCIT-1,BENGALURU/22- 23/1141 VIDE ANNX-M, ETC., THIS WRIT 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–M dated 17.11.2022 passed by the respondent No.1, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) seeking condonation of delay of 1072 days in filing the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51483 WP No. 6292 of 2024 revised return of income in relation to the Assessment Year 2016- 17 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 2016-17, the petitioner filed revised return of income after the prescribed period along with the application seeking condonation of delay of 1072 days in filing the revised return of income interalia contending that the petitioner, inadvertently and due to oversight, had wrongly claimed TDS of Rs.4,32,030/- as against Rs.46,45,488/- and was forced to file 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 revised return of income 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 respondent No.1 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51483 WP No. 6292 of 2024 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 petitioner had wrongly claimed TDS of Rs.4,32,030/- as against Rs.46,45,488/- and was forced to file revised return of income after the expiry of prescribed period. The respondents failed to appreciate that the petitioner could not file its revised 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, 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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51483 WP No. 6292 of 2024 condone the delay in filing the revised return of income 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–M dated 17.11.2022, passed by the first respondent, is hereby set-aside; (iii) The application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay of 1072 days in filing Revised Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Year 2016-17, is hereby allowed; (iv) The respondents are directed to accept the revised return of Income submitted by the petitioner for the aforesaid Assessment Year 2016-17; (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 BMV* List No.: 2 Sl No.: 38