SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 41486

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M.NAGAPRASANNA, J
MOORTHEDHARA SEVA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA – Appellant
Versus
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PCIT – Respondent
WP 21458/2024



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 21458 OF 2024 (T-IT)

BETWEEN:

1. MOORTHEDHARARA SEVA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ACT, 1959 REGISTERED ADDRESS AT:

UPPINANGADY, PUTTUR DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT – 574 241 REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO SRI DEEKAYYA S/O SRI CHENNAPPA POOJARY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI SHREEHARI KUTSA, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by RAKESH S AND:

HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, 1. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Dharwad PCIT, PANAJI AAYAKAR BHAVAN, PLOT NO.05, EDC COMPLEX, PATTO PLAZA PANAJI, GOA-403001 AN AUTHORITY UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961.

REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (NeAC).

2. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, PUTTUR THE JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 INCOME TAX OFFICE RADHIKA COMPLEX, COURT ROAD PUTTUR – 574 201.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.THIRUMALESH, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) QUASH THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 119(2)(b) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DATED 09/12/2022 ISSUED BY THE R1 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2019-20 WHICH BEARS THE DIN VIZ., ITBA/COM/M/17/2022-23/1047950841(1) AND BEARING FOLIO NUMBER F NO. 122/119(2)(b)/PETITIONER.CIT- PNJ/2022-23 WHICH IS ENCLOSED AS ANN-F1.B) TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME PURSUANT TO THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION

119(2)(b) DTD 30.09.20 OF THE ACT ENCLOSED IN ANN-E.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayers:

a. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the order under section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 09/12/2022 issued by the Respondent No.1 for the Assessment Year 2019-20 which bears the DIN viz., ITBA/COM/M/17/2022- 23/1047950841(1) and bearing folio number F No.122/119(2)(b)/Pr.CIT-PNJ/2022-23 which is enclosed as Annexure F1.

b. Issue a writ of mandamus or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus to condone the delay in filing of the return of income pursuant to the application filed under section 119(2)(b) dated 30/09/2020 of the Act enclosed in Annexure E.

c. And pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity including awarding of cost of this Petition.

2. The petitioner, a Cooperative Society registered under the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959. It is said to be eligible for deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and no income tax is payable by the petitioner. Petitioner claims to be a small organization consisting of 6 permanent and 11 temporary staff operating around Uppinagady catering to the financial needs of the toddy-tappers. For the year 2019-2020 owing to serious health issues of the Secretary and various administrative difficulties the petitioner did not file its income tax returns within the due date. The petitioner then files an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the income tax returns. The respondents rejects the application seeking condonation of delay and thereby rejecting the income tax returns to be filed on such delay. It is therefore the petitioner is before this Court in the subject petition.

3. Heard Sri Shreehari Kutsa, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri M Thirumalesh, learned counsel appearing for respondents.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the delay in filing the income tax return has accrued on genuine difficulty. The Secretary of the petitioner was suffering from Parkinson’s disease and therefore, on noticing the fact that the Secretary had not filed the returns in time, preferred an application see

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top