ANJANAPPA HANUMANAIK V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEAL -III

WP/20086/2019

AI Insights

The case involves a writ petition filed by Anjanappa Hanumanik against the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal \\u2013 III and the Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3 (3)(1), challenging the non-crediting of TDS amounts deducted by his employer. The petitioner argued that despite the TDS being credited to the Exchequer, it was not credited to his account, and his appeal was rejected on the grounds of limitation. The respondents contended that the statutory period for seeking modification or rectification had expired. The court found prima facie material supporting the petitioner's claim and emphasized that legitimate relief should not be denied on technical grounds like delay.

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 754833 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 18-02-2020
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: NIRANJANLAL AGARWALA VS. UNION OF INDIA, AIR 1969 SC 23
• Laws Referred To: Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K V ARAVIND
• Assessee Lawyers: ARAVINDA
• Keywords: Credit not given; Equity; Limitation; Natural Justice; TDS
• Section: 154(7)

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.20086 OF 2019 (T-IT) BETWEEN ANJANAPPA HANUMANAIK, NO.2357. 1ST C MAIN ROAD , R.P.O LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGARA, 2ND STAGE BENGALURU-560040. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. ARAVINDA S.N, ADVOCATE) AND 1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEAL –III, BMTC DEPOT BUILDING, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560095. 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3 (3)(1), HMT BHAVAN, BELLARI ROAD, BANGALORE-560032. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE INTEREST OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING – B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: 2 ORDER The short grievance of the petitioner-assessee is against the orders dated 29.6.2018 and 22.03.2019 made by the answering respondents at Annexures – F & H respectively whereby the amounts deducted by way of TDS by his employer have not been given credit and appeal filed against the same having been rejected on the ground of limitation. 2. Sri.K.V. Aravind, learned Senior Panel Counsel on request having accepted notice for the respondents, opposes the writ petition contending that there is a statutory bar for seeking any modification or rectification after the expiry of the statutory period, even if facts pleaded are true and therefore, the impugned orders cannot be faltered. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, this Court grants reprieve to the petitioner-assessee because: (a) there is prima facie material to hold that TDS amount has been credited to the Exchequer by the employer; however, the credit was not given to the assessee and his application for the redressal of said grievance has been 3 negatived on the ground of bar of limitation; true it is that law relating to limitation is a statute of repose; however, the legitimate relief which the petitioners are otherwise entitled to at the hands of Writ Court cannot be denied on the technical ground of delay & latches; it does not behove the State or its instrumentalities to defeat a legitimate claim of a poor citizen on such technical grounds as held by the Apex Court in the case of NIRANJANLAL AGARWALA VS. UNION OF INDIA, AIR 1969 SC 23; and, (b) in fact, the material placed on record goes to show that even after the arguable expiry of the limitation period prescribed under section 154(7), credit of a small sum of Rs.3,000/- has been made available to the petitioner-assessee as is reflected vide column No.23 in Annexure – E; if that is the position, this court does not find any reason or logic in not extending the same benefit in respect of other amounts of TDS; however, this is a matter to be decided by the 2nd respondent herein, after ascertaining the factuals from the records. 4 In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition succeeds in part; impugned orders are set at naught; the delay in making the subject application stands condoned; the matter is remanded to 2nd respondent for consideration afresh on merits, within a period of three months, in accordance with law. All contentions of the parties are kept open. No costs. Sd/- JUDGE CBC "