The Karnataka High Court has condoned the delay in filing the return by the petitioner, Sri. Muthu Mariayamma Devasthana Trust.
The court noted that the very temple is not in the same state as it was prior to the demolition as a matter of genuine hardship for the petitioner.
“The aspect of hardship cannot be a pure objective analysis and may take note of certain subjective consideration,” the court remarked.
Issue Raised
The petitioner trust has challenged the validity of the order by which the department has rejected the application filed seeking condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act in filing of return of income by the assessee for the Assessment year 2020-21.
Facts
The petitioner is a Trust running a temple. In the Assessment year 2020-21 said temple was acquired and compensation of Rs.6,85,59,681/- was awarded by deducting TDS at 10%. It is submitted that the last date for filing of income tax return was 31.10.2020 which stood extended in terms of the notification dated 24.06.2020 till 30.11.2020.
After temple premises were acquired by the Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited (BMRCL) for construction of metro rail, the temple was subsequently demolished and an alternate land was allotted.
The construction in the alternate land commenced on 25.01.2021. The time for filing of return according to the petitioner stood extended till 30.12.2020. By virtue of the CBDT Circular time stood extended till 15.02.2021. Application came to be filed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act seeking for condonation of delay on 14.10.2022.
The petitioner trust stated that the delay in filing of the returns was due to demolition of the temple and they were also in the process of obtaining an alternate land for reconstruction in a different site and in the light of such circumstance there was delay in filing of the returns.
The petitioner argued that while considering the application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, it is necessary to take note that the Trust having been registered under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act exemption is claimed on such ground and that even otherwise insofar as the compensation received consequent to acquisition such amount is also exempted from tax net as observed by this Court in W.P.No.7660/2023. If that were to be so, the retention of TDS deducted by the Department itself would be contrary to Article 265 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that this will make it a case different from other cases and such aspect is required to be kept in mind while considering the delay sought to be condoned.
The department objected to the petitioner’s contention and stated that the order rejecting the application for condonation is well reasoned. The circumstance mentioned by the petitioner cannot be construed to be one beyond the control of the asssesee. The cause made out would neither be a reasonable cause nor it could be described as genuine hardship.
Case Name : Sri. Muthu Mariayamma Devasthana Trust V/S The Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income-Tax, (Exemption) & Ors.
Judicial Level & Location : Karnataka High Court
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 9520 Of 2024 (T-IT)
Date of Ruling : 19-07-2024
Ruling in favour of: Petitioner
Coram: Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav
Petitioner Advocate: M.V. Seshachala Senior
Respondent Advocate: Aravind V Chavan
