IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 1860 OF 2026 (T-IT)

BETWEEN:

JITENDRA MOHANDAS VIRWANI S/O MOHANDAS VIRWANI, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.341, EMBASSY WOODS, 6A CUNNINGHAM ROAD, VASANTH NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 051.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. A. MAHESH CHOWDHARY, ADVOCATE A/W KUM. KRISHIKA VAISHNAV, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Digitally signed by CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3)

VIDYA G R CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING Location:

QUEENS ROAD HIGH COURT OF BENGALURU-560 001.

KARNATAKA

2. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING QUEENS ROAD BENGALURU-560 001.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DILIP, ADVOCATE)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.12.2025, F.NO.119(2)(b)/ PR.CIT(C)/2025-26/10 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BENGALURU, REJECTING THE PETITIONER'S APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 119(2)(B) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 VIDE ANNEXURE-P AS IT IS ARBITRARY AND ILLEGAL AND ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

ORAL ORDER

Petitioner has called in question the correctness of the order dated 22.12.2025 at Annexure-P passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bangalore, rejecting the application filed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 seeking condonation of delay for filing revised returns.

2. The order at Annexure-P impugned in the present writ petition would observe that in light of the CBDT Circular No. 11/2024 dated 01.10.2024, there is no provision to entertain an application beyond 5 years from the end of the relevant assessment year.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had filed an original return of income for the assessment year 2018-19 disclosing advance tax and self- assessment tax paid. It is submitted that subsequently petitioner had received intimation under Section 143(1)(a) for the assessment year 2018-2019 raising a demand. It is at that point of time, petitioner realised that there was an error in the declaration made in the return filed insofar as the details that were to be filled under 'Schedule E1'

relating to Exempt Income.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed along with a memo the table demonstrating the error in the declaration. The same is extracted below:

ORIGINAL RETURNS FILED ON 30.09.2018 Acknowledgement number:316329811300918 Assessment Year:2018-19

5. It is the case of the petitioner that the declaration of dividend income from domestic company at Sl. No.2 of Schedule-E1 was wrongly mentioned as Rs.3,64,87,775 instead of Rs.9,40,187/-. It is further submitted that a perusal of the original returns and the rectified returns would indicate the nature of mistake. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially petitioner had filed an application seeking for rectification of the returns, copy of which is enclosed at Annexure-F. It is submitted that subsequently in terms of Annexure-G, application for rectification came to be rejected on the ground that the present application would be limited to correction of mistakes apparent from records under Section 154 and the mistake made out would not fall within such scope. Thereafter petitioner filed a grievance application and in response to the same, respondent by a communication dated 30.04.2024 had observed that the assessee is required to submit a rectification application.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Circular dated 01.10.2024 would provide a period of 5 years from the end of the assessment year as a limitation for entertaining the revised return.

8. Learned counsel