Murigeppa Kashappa Nara V. Government of India Ministry of Finance Income Tax Department and The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Navanagar and The Income Tax Officer, Ward-I Navanagar

WP/103993/2025

AI Insights

The petitioner, Murigeppa Kashappa Nara, sought judicial relief under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging an order from the Income Tax Department which rejected his claim for a TDS refund due to alleged delay in filing. The petitioner argued that TDS deducted by Karnataka State Mineral Corporation was not considered by the Assessing Officer in a timely manner, leading to his refund claim being rejected. The respondents contended that the delay forfeited the petitioner's right to claim a refund. The High Court of Karnataka, after considering the submissions, decided to condone the delay and remand the case for a decision on the merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 822239 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 08-12-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: M B KANAVI
• Assessee Lawyers: UMERA KAMBIYAVAR
• Keywords: Delay in filing; TDS refund; Writ of Certiorari; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 119(2)(b); 226; 227

Judgement Text

" - 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17384 WP No. 103993 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 103993 OF 2025 (T-IT) BETWEEN: MURIGEPPA KASHAPPA NARA AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, PLOT NO. 113 M/S. V. P. NARA BUILDING, MUCHAKANDI ROAD, APMC YARD, BAGALKOT - 587101 PAN NO. ABYPNO675K. …PETITIONER (BY MS. UMERA FOR SRI. H. R. KAMBIYAVAR, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAVANAGAR, P. B. ROAD, HUBBALLI-580025. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-I NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT-587101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.B KANAVI, CGSC FOR R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF DIRECTION OF IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO. ITBA/COM/F/17/2025-26/1075404383(1), DATED. 1.4.2025, VIDE ANNEXURE-C, PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO THIS WRIT PETITION. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Printed from counselvise.com RAKESH S HARIHAR Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Date: 2025.12.09 11:55:13 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17384 WP No. 103993 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer. 1. Issue a Writ in the nature of direction or in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari quashing the impugned order bearing No. ITBA/COM/F/17/2025- 26/1075404383(1), dated 1.4.2025, vide Annexure-C, passed by the respondent No.1 to this writ petition. 2. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent No.1 herein to consider the representation filed by the petitioner, dated. 27.02.2020, vide ANNEXURE-B to this Writ Petition and to allow the claim of refund made by the petitioner. 3. This Hon’ble High Court may be pleased to issue such other writ or writs or directions as this Hon’ble High Court may deem it fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the petitioner’s case. 2. The petitioner is an assessee and submits his return of income for the assessment year 2018-19. The TDS certificates deducted by Karnataka State Mineral Corporation was not placed before the Assessing Officer at the relevant point in time. Therefore, the petitioner then by placing those materials that he was entitled to refund of TDS that is deducted from the hands of the said Mineral Corporation already, files an application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act. This comes to be Printed from counselvise.com - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17384 WP No. 103993 of 2025 rejected on the score of delay. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court in the subject petition. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent Mr.Thirumalesh and Ms.Rupa would vehemently refute the submission contending that the petitioner has no right to claim refund, as he has lost his right by sheer delay and therefore, would seek dismissal of the petition. 4. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for parties and have perused the material on record. 5. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The erroneous TDS that is paid and allegedly deducted from the hands of the petitioner is on ignorance of Karnataka Mineral Development Corporation already deducting TDS while making payments to the petitioner. This is brought to the notice of the respondent albeit with certain delay. 6. In the peculiar facts of this case, I deem it appropriate to condone the delay and remit the matter back to Printed from counselvise.com - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17384 WP No. 103993 of 2025 the hands of respondent No.2 to consider the case of the petitioner on its merit and pass necessary orders thereon. 7. In the light of the aforesaid circumstance, the representation of the petitioner submitted for the said purpose shall merit consideration at the hands of the respondent in strict consonance with law within an outer limit of four months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. 8. It is made clear that this Court has only considered the aspect of delay in filing the returns and condoned the same. On the merit, it is for the respondent No.1 or respondent No.2, the competent authority, to consider the same and pass necessary orders. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE Rsh CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20 Printed from counselvise.com "