Karnataka High Court
Vihaan Direct Selling (India) vs The Principal Commissioner Of Income ... on 6 November, 2025
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:45048
WP No. 24139 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 24139 OF 2025 (T-IT)
BETWEEN:
VIHAAN DIRECT SELLING (INDIA)
PRIVATE LIMITED
A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY REGISTERED
UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
CHICAGO AVENUE, S-203,
2ND FLOOR, CUNNINGHAM ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 052
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
MR. MUHAMMED IMTHIAZ,
SON OF MR. MUHAMMED IQBAL,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHREEHARI KUTSA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
1. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
by CHANDANA (CENTRAL) BENGALURU
BM BENGALURU
Location: High AN AUTHORITY UNDER SECTION 116
Court of
Karnataka OF THE INCOME ACT, 1961
CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX,
INVESTIGATION, DGIT (INVESTIGATION),
BENGALURU,
AN AUTHORITY UNDER SECTION 116
OF THE INCOME ACT, 1961,
CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING,
QUEENS ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:45048
WP No. 24139 of 2025
HC-KAR
3. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
(CENTRAL RANGE)-2,
BENGALURU,
AN AUTHORITY UNDER SECTION 116
OF THE INCOME ACT, 1961,
CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING,
QUEEN'S ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
(CENTRAL CIRCLE)-2(3), BENGALURU
THE JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER,
CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING,
QUEEN'S ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. Y.V. RAVIRAJ & SRI. M. DILIP, ADVOCATES)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE DIGITALLY
SIGNED AND ELECTRONICALLY ISSUED ORDER UNDER SECTION
119(2) (B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DATED 27.03.2025
ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR
2020-21 AND BEARING THE DIN NO. ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-
05/1075116846(1) WHICH IS ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-P AND
ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned order at Annexure-P dated 27.03.2025 passed by the respondent No.2, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) seeking condonation of delay of 13 days in filing the -3- NC: 2025:KHC:45048 WP No. 24139 of 2025 HC-KAR income tax returns in relation to the Assessment Year 2020-21 was rejected by the respondent No.2.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in relation to the aforesaid Assessment Year 2020-21, the petitioner filed returns after the prescribed period along with the application seeking condonation of delay of 13 days in filing the returns interalia contending that when the petitioner attempted to submit the returns, an error stating "Bad request Request POST" was displayed on the Income Tax Portal and owing to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, the petitioner was not in a position to file the returns within the prescribed period. It was contended that the delay in filing the I.T. returns was due to genuine hardship as contemplated in the Circular No.9/2015 dated 09.06.2015 and as such, the respondent committed an error in rejecting the application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) of the I.T.Act, which deserves to be set aside.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:45048 WP No. 24139 of 2025 HC-KAR
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents- Revenue would support 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 I.T. returns within the prescribed period as when the petitioner attempted to submit the returns, an error stating "Bad request Request POST" was displayed on the Income Tax Portal who could file the I.T. returns subsequent to expiry of the prescribed period. The respondents failed to appreciate that the petitioner could not file his I.T. returns within the prescribed period on account of bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, which 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, adopting justice oriented approach and having regard to valid and sufficient ground pleaded -5- NC: 2025:KHC:45048 WP No. 24139 of 2025 HC-KAR by the petitioner in support of his claim for condonation of delay, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and condone the delay in filing the returns by the petitioner by allowing the application filed by the petitioner.
7. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned order at Annexure-P dated 27.03.2025 is hereby set-aside;
(iii) The application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay of 13 days in filing Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Year 2020-21 is hereby allowed;
(iv) The respondents are directed to accept the returns submitted by the petitioner for the aforesaid Assessment Year 2020-21.
(v) It is needless to state that respondents are at liberty to verify the claim of the petitioner and proceed further in accordance with law.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MDS; List No.: 2 Sl No.: 40