A. Ramappa V. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Processing Centre, Bengaluru and The Income Tax Officer, Ward -1 Kolar

WP/17309/2023

AI Insights

The case involves A. Ramappa, the petitioner, who sought judicial intervention to compel the Income Tax authorities to process his tax return and issue a refund for the Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) for the assessment year 2015-16. Despite the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore-I, condoning the delay in filing the return, the returns filed on June 18, 2016, were not processed, nor was the refund issued. The petitioner approached the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus to enforce the processing of his return and the issuance of the refund.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 683066 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 26-02-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SUSHAL TIWARI
• Assessee Lawyers: R CHANDRASHEKAR; KASHINATH KALMATH
• Keywords: Assessment Year 2015-16; Income Tax; Refund; Tax deducted at source; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 143(1); 119(2)(b)

Judgement Text

" - 1 - NC: 2024:KHC:7916 WP No. 17309 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 17309 OF 2023 (T-IT) BETWEEN: A. RAMAPPA SON OF HANUMATHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, SRI MARIKAMBA NILAYA, MARUTHI EXTENSION, KOLAR ROAD, MALUR-563 130. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. R. CHANDRASHEKAR AND SRI. KASHINATH KALMATH, FOR SRI. RAMA MURTHY.R., ADVOCATES) AND: 1. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTRE, BENGALURU - 560 100. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1 KOLAR - 563101 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SUSHAL TIWARI., ADVOCATE) THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITIUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R2 TO PROCESS THE RETURN AND ISSUE REFUND OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 AS DIRECTED BY THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE-I, BANGALORE IN ORDER DTD 08.03.2023 IN F.NO.COND.119(2)(b)/A RAMAPPA/CCIT/BNG- 1/2022-23/1707 PASSED U/S 119(2)(b) OF THE ACT ANNEXURE-G AND ETC. Digitally signed by VANDANA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:7916 WP No. 17309 of 2023 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER In this petition, petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:- “ 1. The petitioner humbly pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd Respondent to process the return and issue refund of Tax deducted at source for the assessment year 2015-2016 as directed by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income tax, Bangalore –I, Bangalore in order dated: 08.03.2023 in F.No.Cond. 119(2) (b)/A Ramappa/CCIT/BNG-1/2022- 23/1707 passed u/s 119(2) (b) of the Act (Annexure-‘G’) in the interest of justice; 2. The Petitioner humbly pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the First Respondent to process the return filed on 18.06.2016 under Acknowledgement No. 205640461180616 or to amend the intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the Act dated: 02.07.2016 (Annexure-‘B’) by considering the tax deducted at source, which has also been reported in form 26AS (Annexure-C) for the assessment year 2015-16. 3. The petitioner humbly pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue such other Writ or direction as this Hon’ble Court deem it fit in the Petitioner’s case in the interest of justice. “ - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:7916 WP No. 17309 of 2023 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the order at Annexure-G dated 08.03.2023 passed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the I.T.Act’) in order to contend that despite the respondents allowing the said application, thereby condoning the delay in filing the returns filed by the petitioner for the assessment year 2015-16, they have not processed the returns filed by the petitioner on 18.06.2016 and have not granted refund arising out the TDS and as such, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, on instructions, submits that if reasonable time is granted to the respondents, they would process the returns and grant refund in favour of the petitioner arising out of the TDS in accordance with law. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and submissions made by both sides, I deem it just and appropriate to - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:7916 WP No. 17309 of 2023 dispose of this petition by directing the respondent No.2 to process the returns filed by the petitioner and grant refund together with applicable interest, if any, in favour of the petitioner in relation to the TDS in accordance with law on or before 15.04.2024. 6. Subject to the aforesaid directions, petition stands disposed of. SD/- JUDGE Srl. "