SMT. C.M. UMA V. UNION OF INDIA

WP/3447/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Smt. C.M. Uma, the petitioner, who sought to quash an order rejecting her application for condonation of delay in filing income tax returns for the assessment year 2022-2023. The application was initially rejected by the 2nd respondent, the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, on the grounds that the petitioner did not meet the necessary criteria for condonation under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that due to her husband's ill health and other unavoidable circumstances, she was unable to file the returns on time. Additionally, she contended that under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, she was not liable to pay income tax or deduct TDS on the compensation received, which was also rejected by the 2nd respondent. The High Court found that the 2nd respondent had not adequately considered the petitioner's contentions and thus remitted the matter for fresh consideration.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 737821 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 12-03-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. vs. M/s. Sri.Balaji Corporate Services and Others
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, National Highways Act, 1956, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: MADANAN PILLARI; E I SANMATHI; SHOBHIT SHETTY
• Assessee Lawyers: SRINIVASA S R
• Keywords: Compensation; Condonation of delay; Exemption from tax; Income Tax Return; TDS
• Section: 119(2)(b); 105(3)

Judgement Text

" - 1 - NC: 2024:KHC:10009 WP No. 3447 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 3447 OF 2024 (T-IT) BETWEEN: SMT. C.M. UMA, W/O LATE CHIDANANDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT SIDDALINGESHWARANILAYA, ADARSHA NAGARA, TUMKUR-572103 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRINIVASA MURTHY S. R.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. 3. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITON OFFICER NATIONAL HIGH WAY AUTHORITIES, NO.206, SAPTAGIRI EXTENSION, TUMKUR-572 103. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MADANAN PILLARI, CGC FOR R1; SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. SHOBHIT N. SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R3) Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:10009 WP No. 3447 of 2024 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-A DTD 16.01.2024 VIDE ORDER NO. DIN, ITBA/CON/F/17/2023- 24/1059768055(1) FOR THE AY 2022-23 DTD 16.01.2024 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER In this petition, petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned order at Annexure-A dated 16.01.2024 passed by the 2nd respondent whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was rejected. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. 3. A perusal of the material on record indicate that in relation to assessment year 2022-2023, the petitioner-assessee filed an application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, seeking condonation of delay in fling the Income Tax Returns. According to the petitioner, due to her husband's ill health and on account of bona fide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, it was not possible for the petitioner to file the Income Tax Returns within the prescribed period and as such it is the case of genuine hardship, the delay in filing the Income Tax - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:10009 WP No. 3447 of 2024 Returns deserves to be condoned. It was also contended that by virtue of the provisions of The National Highways Act, 1956 and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short 'RFCTLARR Act'), the petitioner would not be liable to pay income tax nor deduct TDS on the compensation amount awarded in favour of the petitioner. However, the said contention of the petitioner was rejected by the 2nd respondent by passing the impugned order, which is assailed in the present petition. 4. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment of the HON'BLE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT IN THE CASE OF BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD., VS. M/S.SRI.BALAJI CORPORATE SERVICES AND OTHERS in Writ Appeal No.890/2022 and connected matters dated 27.09.2023 in order to contend that the petitioner-assessee would neither be liable to pay income tax on the compensation amount nor be liable to deduct TDS on the compensation amount payable in favour of the assessee. - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:10009 WP No. 3447 of 2024 5. My attention is also invited to Section 105(3) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 r/w the Fourth Schedule to the said Act as well as the Notifications, Guidelines, Circulars, Orders etc., passed by the Central Government / Highway Authorities, including Gazette Notification dated 28.08.2015, which makes the said Act applicable to the National Highways Act which is notified as item No.7 in the Fourth Schedule. It is therefore contended, that the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent deserves to be set aside and the application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed by exempting the petitioner from payment of income tax and also from deduction of TDS. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would support the impugned order and submit that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. A perusal of the impugned order indicate that the various aforesaid contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner regarding condonation of delay and exemption from payment of income tax and from deduction of TDS have not been considered or appreciated by the 2nd respondent while passing the impugned - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:10009 WP No. 3447 of 2024 order, which deserves to be set aside and the matter remitted to 2nd respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. 8. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) Petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned order at 'Annexure-A' is hereby set aside. (iii) Matter is remitted back to the 2nd respondent for reconsideration afresh, in accordance with law, bearing in mind the observations made in this order and provisions of Section 105(3) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 r/w the Fourth Schedule of the said Act, as well as the judgment of the HON'BLE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT IN THE CASE OF BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD., VS. M/S.SRI.BALAJI CORPORATE SERVICES AND OTHERS in Writ Appeal No.890/2022 and connected matters dated 27.09.2023 (iv) All rival contentions are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same. (v) The petitioner undertakes to appear before the 2nd respondent on 03.04.2024 without awaiting further notice. - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:10009 WP No. 3447 of 2024 (vi) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to file additional pleadings, documents etc., before 2nd respondent who shall proceed further and provide sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and conclude the proceedings within a period of three months from 03.04.2024. Sd/- JUDGE AP CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15 "