- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51485 WP No. 7364 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. 7364 OF 2024 (T-IT) BETWEEN: KARNATAKA SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROMOTION SOCIETY, ESTABLISHED 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 HERE IN BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. PAVAN KUMAR MALAPATI …PETITIONER (BY SRI. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, ROOM NO. 50, NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI, DELHI - 110 001 REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SECRETARY (ITCC). 2. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISIOSNER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) E-2 BLOCK, 25TH FLOOR, CIVIC CENTRE, MINTO ROAD NEW DELHI - 110 002. Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51485 WP No. 7364 of 2024 3. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) 2ND FLOOR, C.R. BUILIDNG QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU KARNATAKA - 560 095. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. THIRUMALESH, ADVOCATE) *** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 11/12/2023 BEARING F.NO.312/122/2022-OT PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 UNDER SECTION 119(2)(b) OF THE ACT REJECTING THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME (ANNEXURE-P), 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 common order at Annexure–P dated 11.12.2023 passed by the respondent No1, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) seeking condonation of delay of 1072 and 702 days in filing the return of income in relation to the Assessment - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51485 WP No. 7364 of 2024 Years 2017-18 and 2018-19 respectively 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 Years 2017-18 and 2018-19, the petitioner filed return of income for the aforesaid years after the prescribed period along with the application seeking condonation of delay of 1072 and 702 days in filing the return of income interalia contending that for the Assessment Year 2017-18, the petitioner could not file its return of income within the prescribed period due to the sudden demise of the petitioner’s tax consultant and for the Assessment Year 2018-19, the petitioner failed to communicate the acknowledgment for having filed the return of income to the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) and the e-verification of the returns by the petitioner was not completed due to which the said returns were rendered invalid and therefore was forced to file return of income once again belatedly and owing to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, the petitioner could file the return of income only after expiry of the prescribed - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51485 WP No. 7364 of 2024 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. 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 bonafide reasons, 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 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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51485 WP No. 7364 of 2024 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 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 common order at Annexure–P dated 11.12.2023, passed by the first respondent, is hereby set-aside; (iii) The applications filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay of 1072 and 702 days in filing Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Years 2017-18 and 2018-19 respectively, are hereby allowed; - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51485 WP No. 7364 of 2024 (iv) The respondents are directed to accept the return of Income submitted by the petitioner for the aforesaid Assessment Years 2017-18 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 BMV* List No.: 2 Sl No.: 39