SHRI ASHISH SHUKLA, vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 3,
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:49975
WP No. 25922 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010565192026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 15 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 25922 OF 2026 (T-IT)
BETWEEN:
SHRI ASHISH SHUKLA,
S/O RAJENDRA BAHADUR SHUKLA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/O NO. 127/740, W-2,
BASANT VIHAR, KANPUR - 208 021,
PRESENTLY AT,
VILLA 64, PRESTIGE
SUMMERFIELD,
BHOGANHALLI,
NEAR AMBEDKAR STATUE,
BELLANDUR,
BENGALURU 560 103.
…PETITIONER
Digitally
signed by
VANAMALA
N
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. HEMANT VENKATRAY PAI., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX - 3,
BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD,
6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA,
BENGALURU - 560 095.
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:49975
WP No. 25922 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010565192026
2. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
RANGE - 3(3), NO. 59,
TH
4 FLOOR, HMT BHAVAN,
BELLARY ROAD, GANGANAGAR,
BENGALURU 560 032.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX,
CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), NO. 59, 4TH FLOOR,
HMT BHAVAN, BELLARY ROAD,
GANGANAGAR,
BENGALURU 560 032.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M. THIRUMALESH., ADVOCATE A/W
SRI. NIRMAL MATHEW., ADVOCATES)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
A) QUASHING THE REJECTION ORDER DATED
27.02.2026 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 1
UNDER SECTION 119(2)(B) OF THE ACT FOR THE AY
2019-20, BEARING DIN ITBA/COM/F/17/2025-
26/1086649841(1), A COPY OF WHICH IS ENCLOSED
HEREWITH AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE – A;
B) QUASHING THE REJECTION ORDER DATED
27.02.2026 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 1
UNDER SECTION 119(2)(B) OF THE ACT FOR THE AY
2020-21, BEARING DIN ITBA/COM/F/17/2025-
26/1086653652(1), A COPY OF WHICH IS ENCLOSED
HEREWITH AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A1;
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:49975
WP No. 25922 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010565192026
C) QUASHING THE REJECTION ORDER DATED
27.02.2026 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 1
UNDER SECTION 119(2)(B) OF THE ACT FOR THE AY
2021-22, BEARING DIN ITBA/COM/F/17/2025-
26/1086654730(1), A COPY OF WHICH IS ENCLOSED
HEREWITH AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A2;
D) QUASHING THE REJECTION ORDER DATED
27.02.2026 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 1
UNDER SECTION 119(2)(B) OF THE ACT FOR THE AY
2022-23, BEARING DIN ITBA/COM/F/17/2025-
26/1086655155(1), A COPY OF WHICH IS ENCLOSED
HEREWITH AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE - A3;
E) QUASHING THE REJECTION ORDER DATED
27.02.2026 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 1
UNDER SECTION 119(2)(B) OF THE ACT FOR THE AY
2023-24, BEARING DIN ITBA/COM/F/17/2025-
26/1086655455(1), A COPY OF WHICH IS ENCLOSED
HEREWITH AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE - A4;
F) DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO. 3 TO ENABLE
THE FACILITY FOR E-FILING THE REVISED RETURNS
BELATEDLY OF INCOME FOR THE AY 2019-20, 2020-21,
2021-22, 2022-23 AND 2023-24 PROCESS THE SAME
AND ISSUE THE APPLICABLE REFUND IN A TIME-
BOUND MANNER.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:49975
WP No. 25922 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010565192026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is an employee with M/s.
Flipkart India Private Limited [ FIPL ], and the
petitioner has called in question the first
respondent's Orders under Section 119[2][b] of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short, ‘the Act’ ] rejecting
the petitioner's application for condonation of delay to
file Revised Returns of five assessment years
commencing with the assessment year 2019-20. The
details of the first respondent's impugned orders are
as follows.
Sl. No. Assessment Year Rejection Annexures
Order
1 2019-20 27.02.2026 A
2 2020-21 27.02.2026 A1
3 2021-22 27.02.2026 A2
4 2022-23 27.02.2026 A3
5 2023-24 27.02.2026 A4
The first respondent, in rejecting the petitioner's
applications by the impugned orders, has essentially
reasoned thus while placing reliance upon a decision
of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:49975
WP No. 25922 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010565192026
‘Sharavathy Conductors Private
24.10.2017 in
Limited v The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,
Bengaluru – 2 and Others’ in the writ petition in W.P.
No.28376/2017.
“3. In this case, a report was
obtained from the JAO, DCIT, C-3[3][1],
Bengaluru, who did not recommend
condonation of delay in filing the revised
return. It was noted that the applicant had
filed the original returns for the relevant years
admitting salary income, which included
consideration received on repurchase of stock
options by Flipkart India Pvt. Ltd. [FIPL].
Subsequently, the applicant sought to file
revised returns, re-characterizing the said
receipts as capital gains, contending that the
employer’s classification was a conservative
stand. On verification, the AO observed that
the employer had correctly treated the
repurchase of stock options under the Flipkart
Stock Option Scheme, 2012 as a perquisite in
terms of Section 17[2][vi] of the Income Tax Act,
since the buyback proceeds constituted a
monetary benefit arising directly from
employment. As the options were never
converted into shares and sold independently,
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:49975
WP No. 25922 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010565192026
the receipt was linked to the employment
contract and rightly taxed under the head
salaries. The AO concluded that the original
assessment was in accordance with law and
records, and hence no error or valid refund
arises. Consequently, the application does not
establish genuine hardship as required under
section 119[2][b]. In view of the above, the
case is not found fit for condonation. The
Range Head concurred with the remarks of the
JAO.”
2. Sri Hemant Venkatray Pai, the Learned
counsel for the petitioner, submits that this Court
must intervene because of the following.
[ A] The petitioner's applications are rejected
examining the merits of the request for
revision rather than examining the
reason offered and the financial
hardship.
[B] The petitioner, based on Form-16 issued
by FIPL, has filed Returns for all the five
Assessment Years, adopting the value for
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:49975
WP No. 25922 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010565192026
which his employer, M/s Flipkart India
Private Limited [ FIPL ] has purchased
these Employee Stock Option Scheme
[ ESOPs ] allotted to the petitioner without
realizing that the consideration cannot
be treated as ‘ salaries’ only because the
petitioner had not converted the
allotment into shares when it is
indisputable that the shares stood
vested with the petitioner.
[C] The petitioner has, in the applications
filed for condonation of delay, quantified
the refund that the petitioner would be
admitted to if the petitioner is permitted
to revise the Returns to show the
receipts not as ‘ salary’ but as ‘ capital
asset’ and that these details have not
been considered.
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:49975
WP No. 25922 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010565192026
3. Sri. M. Thirumalesh, a learned senior
standing counsel for the respondents and who is
assisted by Sri Nirmal Mathew, a learned standing
counsel for the respondents, are heard for disposal of
the petition. The learned Standing Counsel submits
that the petitioner has filed these applications the
decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Bangalore Benches, Bangalore Bench-B, Bengaluru
[Tribunal] in the appeal in ITA No.3034/Bang/2025
on whether the receipt in the circumstances relied
upon by the petitioner could be adopted as ‘ salary’
and that the petitioner, who has filed Returns
consistently in terms of Form-16 adopting the receipt
as salary cannot take advantage of the turn of events
and seek condonation..
4. In response, Sri Hemant V Pai submits
that the Tribunal's order is only on 30.07.2026 and
the petitioner's applications are about one and half
years prior to the date of such decision and therefore
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:49975
WP No. 25922 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010565192026
the bonafides asserted by the petitioner in seeking
condonation of delay cannot be disputed on such
ground. The learned counsel also submits that the
first respondent could not have relied upon the
decision in Sharavathy Conductors Private Limited
[ Supra ] because the Division in the writ appeal in W.A.
No.6752/2017 has set-aside such order condoning
the delay and directing the Assessing Office to
process the Revised Returns in accordance with law..
5. The question for consideration is whether
this Court must intervene with the first respondent's
impugned orders to restore the proceedings with
opportunity to allow the petitioner to file a rejoinder in
support of the applications for condonation of delay .
This Court must observe that the first respondent
has opined that the petitioner has failed to establish
genuine hardship as required under Section 119[2][b]
of the Act and that the petitioner's case is not found
fit for condonation, but this is in the backdrop of the
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:49975
WP No. 25922 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010565192026
Assessing Officer's opinion that the petitioner would
not be entitled to adopt the receipts paid by the
employer [ FIPL ] as capital gain because the options
were never converted into shares and sold
independently and the receipt was linked to the
petitioner’s contract and is rightly taxed under the
head ‘salaries’ .
6. The Division Bench’s Judgment dated
10.02.2020 in the writ appeal in W.A. No.6752/2017
undisputedly underscores the proposition that the
jurisdiction to condone the delay cannot be exercised
to adjudicate upon disputed or contentious claims. If
the first respondent, rather than examining the
petitioner's cause for condonation of delay has
decided the matter based on merits and the opinion
of the Assessing Officer on merits, this Court is of the
view that such orders cannot be sustained and the
petitioner's applications must be restored for due
consideration in the backdrop of the petitioner's
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:49975
WP No. 25922 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010565192026
cause for filing applications belatedly and the
genuine hardship that the petitioner asserts to
support the request for condonation of delay. Hence
the following:
ORDER
[A] The petition is allowed in-part.
[B] The first respondent’s following Orders are
quashed restoring each of the petitioner's
corresponding applications for
reconsideration with liberty to the
petitioner to file further justification in
support of the request for condonation of
delay along with a certified copy of this
order by 06.11.2026.
Sl. Assessment Year Rejection Annexures
No. Order
1 2019-20 27.02.2026 A
2 2020-21 27.02.2026 A1
3 2021-22 27.02.2026 A2
4 2022-23 27.02.2026 A3
5 2023-24 27.02.2026 A4
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:49975
WP No. 25922 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010565192026
[C] The first respondent is called upon to
consider the restored applications entirely
based on the parameters that would be
relevant for the purposes of Section
119[2][b] of the Act. It is needless to
observe that this Court has not made any
observations on the merits of the
petitioner's case for filing revised Returns
and that the first respondent must
consider these restored applications
expeditiously.
SD/-
(B M SHYAM PRASAD)
JUDGE
AN/-