- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29724 WP No. 35118 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 35118 OF 2025 (T-IT) BETWEEN: MRS. SHARADA THIMMAIAH VARASUNDARA W/O. LATE T.N. NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.373, 10TH CROSS, MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560086. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.R. CHANDRASHEKAR., ADVOCATE) AND: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PCIT, BENGALURU-3, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK,KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560095. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. THIRUMALESH M.,ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 30-07-2024 PASSED Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29724 WP No. 35118 of 2025 U/S.119(2)(B)OF THE ACT (ANNEXURE-'F') ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-25/1067148081(1) ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT; CONDONE THE DELAY AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS ENABLING THE PETITIONER TO FILE A RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY 2020-21 AND TO MAKE A CLAIM FOR REFUND OF TAX. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner, an octogenarian and a retired School Teacher, is aggrieved by the respondent's decision to reject her application for condonation of delay under Section 119[2][b] of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondent’s decision is in the Communication dated 30.07.2024 [Annexure-F]. The respondent has rejected the application reasoning thus: “The contentions of the assessee while making the condonation request are carefully considered. The reasons for the delay and the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29724 WP No. 35118 of 2025 contention that assessee had genuine hardship is examined. The assessee had not enclosed the proper supporting documents such as Form 16, Copies of ITR of earlier year or other proof in support of figures quoted in Form 10E as well as documentary evidence towards claim of hardship along with her application. The assessee was given an opportunity to furnish the supporting documents vide letter of this office dated: 06/07/2024 bearing DIN:ITBA/ COM/ F/ 17/ 2024-25/ 1058514958(1). However, assessee has failed to submit any supporting document till date. In view of the above it is concluded that the reason for not filing the return of income quoted by the assessee is vague and her claim is not supported by proper evidence. Accordingly, the application is not covered by the Board Circular No. 09/2015.” 2. Sri R Chandrashekar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that this Court may consider the peculiarities set forth by the petitioner and that if the delay is condoned, the petitioner will have an opportunity to file Returns with all the enclosures based upon which the request for refund - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29724 WP No. 35118 of 2025 could be considered. On the facts, the learned counsel elaborates the following. [a] The petitioner has stayed with her daughter in the United States of America for years and therefore she could not draw pension admitted to her between 01.04.2015 and 28.02.2020. [b] Upon her return to India, she filed a Life Certificate to claim pension which was due and the Authorities, while remitting the pension, have affected ‘Tax Deducted at Source’ in a sum of Rs.1,32,002/- notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner would not be liable to pay the tax. [c] The petitioner could not immediately file her application given her age and dependency on others. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29724 WP No. 35118 of 2025 3. Sri M Thirumalesh, the learned standing counsel for the respondent, is heard. It remains indisputable that the petitioner could as part of her Returns, if there is condonation of delay, produce materials that would justify a claim for Refund. The respondent in asking for these documents even before condoning the delay has preempted the petitioner from producing those documents. The respondent could have asked for these documents before a decision. This Court is also persuaded to opine that the petitioner has shown sufficient cause. 4. Therefore, this Court opines that the respondent, in rejecting the petitioner's application for condonation of delay, has excluded material circumstances and hence there must be interference condoning the delay. At this stage, when queried on the further process for the petitioner with this Court condoning the delay, it is stated that the respondent will have to pass a consequential order which could - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29724 WP No. 35118 of 2025 be uploaded along with the Returns that the petitioner will file. In the light of the afore, the following: ORDER The writ petition is allowed quashing the respondent's order dated 30.07.2024 [Annexure-F] calling upon the respondent to issue and upload a formal order on condonation of delay in the light of the Court's order so that it is possible to the petitioner to upload the Returns and enclosed documents. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE AN/-