IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

WRIT PETITION NO. 37312 OF 2025 (T-IT)

BETWEEN:

1. SUMANT CHENGAPPA

AGED 61 YEARS,

S/O M B CHENGAPPA,

CARE - "HONEY FARM",

SIDAPUR, SOUTH COORG,

KODAGU - 571 253.

…PETITIONER

(BY MS. SUVARNA LAKSHMI M.L., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Digitally signed

by ITO WARD,

SHARADAVANI

MADIKERI - 571 201.

B

Location: High

Court of

Karnataka 2. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

BANGALORE - 3,

BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD,

6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA,

BANGALORE 560095.

3. DEPUTY/ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX,

INVESTIGATION-2,

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY/ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF

INCOME TA INVESTIGATION-2, FAIU, BANGALORE 560001.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. JYOTI M. MARADI, HCGP)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 119(2)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT) DATED 20/09/2023 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN DIN NO. ITBA/COM/F/17/2023- 24/1056318920(1) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2019-20 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL ORDER

1. In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs;

"1) Issue a writ of certiorari or a direction in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the order under section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') dated 20/09/2023 passed by the Respondent No.2 in DIN No: ITBA/COM/F/17/2023- 24/1056318920(1) assessment year 2019-20 (Annexure-A).

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or a direction in the nature of writ of mandamus directing to the respondents condone the delay in filing the revised return of income for the assessment year 2019-20 and to permit the petitioner to file a revised return of income, in accordance with law.

iii) And pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity."

2. A perusal of the material on record would indicate that the petitioner did not file his revised income tax returns within the due date and subsequently, paid the income tax in terms of the revised returns and thereafter filed the application under Section 119(2)(b) seeking codonation of delay in filing the revised returns. The said application having been rejected by the respondent vide order at Annexure-A dated 20.09.2023, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

3. It is contended that the delay in filing the revised income tax returns was on account of bonafide reasons unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause and the petitioner being a non resident Indian was not in Indian and could not file the revised returns before the due date and it was due to genuine hardship as contemplated in the Circular No.9/2015 dated 09.06.2015 and as such, the impugned order passed by the respondent rejecting the application deserves to be set-aside and application for codonation of delay filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supports 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 the revised returns within the prescribed period was on account of the undisputed fact that the petitioner was none resident Indian (NRI) and the same owing to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause 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, I dee