GOURAWWA BASAPPA GORNAL V. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME

WP/105418/2014

AI Insights

The case involves Smt. Gourawwa Basappa Gornal, the petitioner, who was a land loser due to the Upper Krishna Project and received compensation that was not considered market value, leading to a civil court enhancing the compensation with interest. The Income Tax Department deducted tax at source from the interest amount. The petitioner filed a delayed return for the assessment year 2010-11, which was rejected by the Income Tax authorities on the grounds of delay and merits. The petitioner sought condonation of delay under Section 119 of the Income Tax Act, which was initially rejected, prompting the filing of this writ petition. The court, referencing a similar case, found in favor of the petitioner, quashing the impugned order and allowing the delay in filing the return.

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 741567 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 09-07-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: A.Balakrishnan vs. General Manager, Hindustan Machine Tools and Another
• Laws Referred To: Constitution of India, Land Acquisition Act, Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: Y V RAVIRAJ
• Assessee Lawyers: M V SHESHACHALA
• Keywords: Compensation; Delay in filing return; Income Tax; Land Acquisition; Tax deducted at source
• Section: 119; 139(1); 139(4); 18; 226; 227

Judgement Text

": 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY 2014 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.VENUGOPALA GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO.105418/2014 (T-IT) BETWEEN SMT. GOURAWWA BASAPPA GORNAL A/P: BISANAL, SO: GALAGALI TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.V. SHESHACHALA ADV. FOR SRI. H.R. KAMBIYAVAR, ADV.) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OPP. CIVIL HOSPITAL, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BELGAUM. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-I, BAGALKOT. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. Y V RAVIRAJ, ADV.) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 06.11.2013 PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-D, ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: : 2 : ORDER Petitioner is a land loser for implementation of the Upper Krishna Project. Compensation offered by the Land Acquisition Officer having been found to be not the market value and feeling aggrieved a reference sought under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, having been made and reference having been decided, the civil court enhanced compensation with interest was awarded. On the interest amount payable to the petitioner, tax was deducted at source. 2. For the assessment year 2010-11 (01.04.2009 to 31.03.2010), the last date for filing of the return, under Section 139(1) of IT Act, was 31.07.2010. The last date under Section 139(4) of the Act, was 31.07.2011. The petitioner has filed the return on 21.06.2012. Form-16A was issued by the authority, which had deducted the tax at source, on 22.06.2012. Hence, an application was filed under Section 119 of the Act, on 18.03.2013, for condonation of delay. By the impugned order, the first respondent having rejected the return on the : 3 : ground that there is delay and also on merits, feeling aggrieved this writ petition was filed. 3. Heard Sri.Sheshachala, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Sri. Y.V.Raviraj, learned advocate for the respondents and perused the writ petition record. 4. The case herein is identical to the case in WP.Nos.65995-65999/2012 and 63117/2011 decided on 07.12.2012. Therein, the order passed in the case of A.Balakrishnan vs. General Manager, Hindustan Machine Tools and Another, (2007) 290 ITR, 227, affirmed by the Division Bench and by the Apex Court, was followed. 5. The first respondent, while passing the impugned order has not taken into consideration the material circumstance i.e., Form-16A having been issued to the petitioner on 22.06.2012 i.e., subsequent to the return, having been filed on 21.06.2012. Thus, there is arbitrariness on the part of the respondent. In view of the order passed by this Court, noticed in para 3 supra, in an identical case and the said order having attained finality, following the same it is ordered as follows: : 4 : Writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. There being bonafide circumstances and the delay in filing the return being not deliberate, the application filed under Section 119 of the Act, on 18.03.2010 is allowed and delay condoned. As a consequence, 2nd respondent is directed to process the return filed by the petitioner, for the assessment year 2010-11, with expedition. However, it is open to the assessing authority, to call for information, if any, with regard to genuineness of the claim and take decision in the matter, within a period of three months from the date a copy of this order becomes available. SD/- JUDGE ca ct: DH/- "