Faceless Assessment Centre/Nlational E-Assessment Centrer and vs Union of lndia and othcrsr whercin in similar circumstances, the

Petition under Arlicle 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ' Order or Direction, declaring, that. a. the order dated 2011212024, vide DlN. \TBNCOM|F|1712024- 2511071419284( 1), passed by the 1st Respondent, re.iecting the application filed by the Petitioner for condoning the delay, in filing Form 108, lor the Assessment Yeat 2021 - 22 and b. the rectification order issued by the 2nd Respondent, dated 07 03 2023, u/s 154 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, vide DlN. ?PC121221U71324261008, rectifying the intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, dated 10'08'2022, vide DlN. CPCt2122lA7 t2876'10069, for the Assessment Year 2021 - 22 as arbitrary, mechanical, illegal, bad in law, violative of the rrinciples of natural justice apart from being violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 265 of the constitution of lndia and the lncome Tax Act, 1961 and consequently set aside the same in the interests of justice. IA NO: 10F 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings, including any recovery, pursualt to the rectification order issued by the 2nd Respondent, dated 07.03-2023, uls 154 of the lncome Tax Act, 196'1, vide DlN. CPC/21221U71324261008, for tlre Assessment Year 2021 - 22, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A.V.A.SIVA KARTIKEYA Counsel for the Respondents: SRI RAMA KRISHNA REDD\'.A., SC FOR lT The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA W.P. No.8294 OF 2025 ,EB' (Pe r Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy) Heard Mr. A.V.A.Siva Kartikeya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.Rama Krishna Reddy, leamed Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department for the respondents Perused the record.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 20.12.2024 passed by respondent No.l rejecting the application filed by the petitioner seeking for condonation ofdelay in filing Form l0B for the assessment year 2021-22. The challenge also is to the order of respondent No.2 dated 07.03.2023 issued under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 196l (for short 'the Act') rectiffing the intimation notice issued under Section 143(l) of the Act d*ed 10.08.2022.

3. At the outset, the leamed Standing Counsel for the Department had raised a preliminary objection as regards the jurisdiction of this High Court. The contention of the learned z Standing Counsel was that the petitioner herein is an establishment which is located in the newly carved out State of Andhra Pradesh. The office of respondent No.3, who is the assessing authority for the petitioner's establishment, is also located in the State of Andhra Pradesh and, therefore, the petitioner ought to have preferred the writ petition before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, rather than this High Court.

4. The learned Standing Counsel for the Department relied upon a decision of this High Court in the case of Sri Gopalaswamy Educational Society vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Hyderabadr and also a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. ABC Papers Ltd., and anotherz whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court as also this Court in the irforesaid two decisions have held that in case where the establishmr:nt is located, it would be the High Court concemed having jurisdir:tion over the area where the establishment is located which could have the actual ' W.P.No.745 8 of 2024 dated 2 1.03.2024 '(2022) 447 rTR I (SC) lt,' 3 jurisdiction to entertain the petition even though the authority whose order is under challenge is located in the different State

5. Per contra, the learned counsel lor the petitioner opposing the preliminary objection had relied upon two decisions of this High Court. First, in the case ol Shilparam Arts, Crafts and Cultural Society vs. Additional/Joint/Deputy Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/Income Tax oflicer, National Faceless Assessment Centre/Nlational E-Assessment Centrer and also subsequent decision recently decided by a Coordinate Bench of this High Court in the case of Nl/s Children in the Nliddle vs. Union of lndia and othcrsr whercin in similar circumstances, the two writ petitions were allowed and the objections were entertained holding that the High Court had the juri'diction and has gone into the veracity of the order passed by the Commissioner of lncome Tax (Exemptions) and decided the satne. ' (2024) 468 tTR 3 I 5 (Telangana) " W.P.No.3104l ol 2024 dated 14. I 1.2024 ,- 4

6. Having heard the contentions put-forth on either side and on perusal of the records when we look at the two dec sions relied upon by the leamed Standing Counsel for the Departnrent, we flnd that the two decisions, one rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case ofABC Papers Ltd., (1 supra) and rhe othcr decided by this High Couft in the case of Sri Gopalaswamy Oducational Society (2 supra), the challenge before the High Court was the orders which were passed in an appeal. Whereas in rhe two writ petitions decided one by this Bench and the other by;r Coordinare Bench in the case of Shilparamam Arts, Crafts and Cultural Society (3 supra) as also in the case of M/s Children in the Middle (4 supra) it was the order of the Commission,:r of lncome Tax (Exemptions) which were under challenge and were not the appeals which were decided. We also find that the rejcction of Form l0B by respondent No.1 is not an appe lable order. Moreover, the submission of Form 10B was initialll accepted by respondent No.2 and granted the._penefit of exemption to the petitioner, but subsequently the said order was rectified by respondent No.2 on 07.03.2023 on the ground that l.'orm l0B was 5 submitted at a belated stage. It was here that the petitioner thereafter filed a petition under Section I l9(2Xb) of the Act before respondent No.1 seeking for condonation of the delay. The delay was only of l0 days and it is this petition which stood rejected vide the impugned order dated 20.12.2024

7. Having heard the contentions of both sides and upon due consideration of the record, we have given thoughtful consideration so far as the preliminary objection raised by the leamed Stapding Counsel for the Department is concerned and we find that even if the petition is allowed the matter is not going to either respondent No.3 or any of the officers of the Income Tax Department in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The consequential orders and the consequential steps to be taken is again by respondent No.2, who otherwise is not located in the State of Andhra Pradesh and in the given circumstances, we are inclined to take a view that this Bench had taken in the case of Shilparamanr Arts, Crafts and Cultural Society (3 supra) as also by a Coordinate Bench in the case of Children in the Middle (4 supra) and overrule the objection raised by the leamed Standing Counsel and decide that this High Court 5 has the jurisdiction to test veracity of the ord:r passed by respondent No. l.

8. Coming to the question of whether respondr:nt No. I was justified in rejecting the petition filed under Sectior I I9(2)(b) of the Act, this Bench as also the Hon,ble Supreme (.ourt has time and again reiterated the fact that when application under Section ll9(2)(b) of the Act has been made, it has to be considered in a liberal manner and with a more pragmatic approacl, particqlarly taking into consideration the genuine hardship the assessee would face in the event if the condone delay petition is not allowed. In the instant case, the petitioner has got the exerrption under Section l2(9) and they are availing the said benefiri since 2005 onwards and the retums were filed by them within rhe stipulated time. We find that Form l0B which was supposed to be filed on 15.02.2022 was filed on25.02.2022. Thus, there is a <lelay of only I0 days. Undoubtedly, the said period for all practical purposes is considered to be a COVID period. Even the judg.nent of the Supreme Court in Suo Motu W.p.No.3 of 2020had while disposing of the said writ petition had clearly said that the period lrom 7

15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 should not be taken into consideration for the purpose of counting the limitation and it was also clarified that the said principles laid down in the said decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court could also be applicable in all the proceedings and not just in the judicial proceedings alone, rather it would be applicable in all the said proceedings where the period of limitation has been prescribed under the Statute. If the analogy laid down in the said decision of the Hon'bte Supreme Court is taken into consideration and applied in the instant case, then there can be no dispute that the delay of 10 days in the submission of Form I 0B could had been easily condoned by respondent No. l.

9. For this very reason alone, we find that the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 dated 20.12.2024 deserves to be and is, accordingly, set aside. As a consequence of the setting aside of the impugned order dated 20.12.2024 passed by respondent No.l, we hold the authorities to treat Form 10B that has been filed to be within limitation and as'a consequence the order passed by respondent No.2 under Section 143(l) of the Act dated 10.08.2022 l would automatically get revived so far as the asessme:nt year 2021_ 22 is concemed.

10. The writ petition to the aforesaid extent is allowed and disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// ASREE STRAR SD/. T. JAY 0t,puw Rect \--:--:- SECTION OFFICER

1. The Commissioner of lncome-Tax (Exemptions Aayakar Bhawan, Opposite LB Stadiu m, Bashee rbag Telangana Hycerabad, 2nd Floor, h, Hyderabad - 500 004.

2. The Centralised Processing Center, lncome Tax Departrrent, Bengaluru, .lst Floor, Prestige Atpha No.. -qAn, aAiz, eeriGnJigiJI;ru B;g;; Ho;; Rb;, Uttarahatti Hobti, Bengaturu - 560 1OO, Xarnati[i] - '-

3. The lncome Tax Officer Rajahmundry - 533 101, Andhr;-C;d;h . Exemp_tion Ward, Rajahmundrv, Aayakar Bhawan,

4. The lncome Tax Officer Exemption Ward 1(4), Hyderabad, Aayakar Bhawan. " " " " opposi te L B S tad i um, a'asneer6ash, d5j fdojjboi' i"Ij -H

5. One CC to SRI A.V.A.StVA KARTIKEYA, Advocate [OpUr)] 6. One CC to SRt RAMA KRTSHNA REDDY.A., SC FOR tT tOpUCl 7. Two CD Copies ""1 "dlirrl BSR BM \1- I HIGH COURT DATED: 2410312025 ORDER WP.No.8294 of 2025 e 1HE S7 () I 14: (.S 2 6 JUl,l +) o o ,\+ ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS ctrp er\ 1 fticr-,