THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION Nos.8758, 8759, 8761 & 8916 of 2025

COMMON ORDER:

(per the Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)

Since the issue in the present writ petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by this Common Order.

2. Heard Mr. Karan Talwar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. G.Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.1, Ms. Bokaro Sapna Reddy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department for respondent No.3, Mr. B.Mukherjee, learned Additional Government Pleader, representing Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for respondent No.4.

3. These are four writ petitions filed by the petitioners challenging the order passed by respondent No.1 in declining to condone the delay application filed by the petitioners under Section 119 (2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the ‘Act’).

4. All the petitioners herein in four writ petitions are partners in a joint venture by the name Gayatri Projects Limited. The petitioners herein for some unavoidable circumstances were not able to file their income tax returns for the assessment year 2023-24. It was the contention of the petitioners that Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (for short, the ‘CIRP’) was initiated against the lead partner Gayatri Projects Limited and proceedings commenced before the National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench (for short, the ‘NCLT’) from 15.11.2022. Subsequently, an Interim Resolution Professional (for short, the ‘IRP’) was appointed. Because Gayatri Projects Limited had gone into CIRP, there was a substantial loss of employees and manpower and because of the then prevailing situation, the lead partner itself having gone into CIRP, and an IRP also being appointed, the returns could not be filed within the stipulated period. Subsequently, the petitioners moved an application before respondent No.1 under Section 119 (2)(b) of the Act in around March and April 2024 with a delay ranging in all these four writ petitions between 135 days to 153 days, 153 days being the maximum period of delay i.e. roughly around 5 months’

time.

5. According to the petitioners, if their returns are accepted by condoning the delay, they would be entitled for refund as per the Assessing Officer’s report and, personal hearing on the application seeking condonation of delay was granted to the petitioners, which was availed by them.

6. It was the contention of the petitioners that in between because of the establishment being subjected to CIRP, the establishment got occupied in constant day to day firefighting of project management issues such as handling threats of termination, and protection of BGs etc. Meanwhile, the IRP who was recently appointed could not take requisite steps so far as the state of affairs of the establishment is concerned and the statutory compliance could not be done within the stipulated time, particularly the time stipulated for filing of the income tax returns for the assessment year 2023-24. All these factors which were beyond the control of the petitioners, prevented them from timely filing of income tax returns for the assessment year 2023-24 and it was for this reason that the condone delay petitions were filed for condoning the delay ranging from 135 days to 153 days in the present writ petitions.

7. According to the petitioners, the delay was entirely beyond their control. It was neither intentional nor was it as a result of wilful negligence. According to the petitioners, they were already in distressed financial condition and there was also the risk of instability and insecurity. The petitioners submitted written submissions dated 02.01.2025 to respondent No.1 and reconciled the differences between the amount determined by respondent No.3 and the amount of refund claimed by them, following which the petitioners could claim for refund that they have made.

8. The respondent No.1, however, vide t