The High Court of Karnataka ruled that heavy rainfall is a true reason for the income tax delay, and then it quashed the order of the commissioner. An order was contested by the petition on 24.02.2021, which was passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, who had rejected an application for the condonation of the late filing of ITRs for the AY 2017-18.
The court stated that the order on 24.02.2021 and its corrigendum, which rejected the applicant’s application for the condonation of a 36-day delay, were wrong. It was ruled that the delay had led to genuine hardship as mentioned under Circular No. 9/2015, and the respondents had opted for a hyper-technical procedure in refusing the condonation.
The main problem was whether the inability of the applicant to file the ITRs in the specified period due to the failure of the system caused by heavy rainfall led to enough cause for condonation u/s 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
R N Shetty Trust, the applicant, represented by its trustee Sri Naveen Rama Shetty, stated that the delay was due to bona fide reasons and unavoidable occurrences outside its control. It mentioned that the failure to admire this genuine hardship on the part of the taxpayer warranted the interruption of the court to set aside the impugned order.
The petition has been opposed by the Respondent, the Income Tax authorities, supporting the impugned order. They cited that no merit was there in the petition and that the original order rejecting the condonation application was legal and must be kept.
Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar ruled in favour of the applicant. The court discovered that the respondents had been unable to appreciate that the inability of the applicant to file the returns was due to system failure and genuine hardship, which comprised adequate cause for condonation. The court, adopting a “justice-oriented approach,” considered it just and appropriate to interfere.
Read Also: Genius: Best Tax Filing Software for CA and Professionals
The bench held that the application submitted via the applicant u/s 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay is hereby permitted. Subsequently, the impugned order at Annexure-A1 and its corrigendum at Annexure-A2 were set aside. The respondents were required to accept the returns filed via the applicant for the AY 2017-18, with the freedom to confirm the claim and proceed under the law.
| Case Title | R N Shetty Trust Vs. the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax |
| Case No. | WRIT PETITION NO.19497 OF 2022 (T-IT) |
| For Petitioner | Sri. Annamalai S., Advocate |
| For Respondent | Sri. Ravi Raj Y. V. & Sri. M. Dilip, Advocates |
| Karnataka High Court | Read Order |
