RAJESAHEB SAHEBALAL BHAGAWAN V. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME

WP/105410/2014

AI Insights

The case involves multiple writ petitions filed by land losers of the Upper Krishna Project, challenging the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Belgaum, which rejected their applications for condonation of delay in filing income tax returns under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioners argued that the delay was due to late receipt of Form No. 16-A from the authorities who paid them compensation for their land, which was acquired for the project. The court referenced a similar case (W.P. No. 105418/2014) where the delay was condoned under similar circumstances and decided to allow the writ petitions based on that precedent.

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 727141 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 09-09-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: A.Balakrishnan vs. General Manager, Hindustan Machine Tools and Another
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: Y V RAVIRAJ
• Assessee Lawyers: H R ASSOCIATES SMT PATRI SASHIKALA K
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Filing of Returns; Income Tax; Upper Krishna Project; Writ petition
• Section: 139(1); 139(4); 119(2)(b); 18; 226; 227

Judgement Text

": 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA WRIT PETITION NO. 105412/2014 (T-IT) C/W. WRIT PETITION Nos. 105413/2014, 105410/2014, 105406/2014 & 105407/2014 W.P. NO.105412/2014 : BETWEEN : SMT. NINGAMMA KULAPPA ROOGI AGE. 49 YEARS, A/P: BISANAL, PO: GALAGALI, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT ... PETITIONER (BY SRI : H R KAMBIYAVAR ASSOCIATES & SMT. PATRI SASHIKALA K. ADVOCATE) 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, ADVOCATE) : 2 : THIS WRIT PETITION 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. W.P. NO.105413/2014 : SANGAPPA KALLAPPA BAGALI AGE . 33 YEARS, A/P: BISANAL, PO: GALAGALI TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT ... PETITIONER (BY SRI : H R KAMBIYAVAR ASSOCIATES & SMT.PATRI SASHIKALA K. ADVOCATE) 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, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION 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. W.P. NO. 105410/2014 : RAJESAHEB SAHEBALAL BHAGAWAN AGE . 51 YEARS, A/P: BISANAL, PO: GALAGALI TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT. .. PETITIONER (BY SRI : H R KAMBIYAVAR ASSOCIATES & SMT.PATRI SASHIKALA K. ADVOCATE) : 3 : 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, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION 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. W.P. NO. 105406/2014 : NAGARAJ BASAPPA GORANAL AGE. 40 YEARS, A/P: BISANAL, PO: GALAGALI TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT ... PETITIONER (BY SRI : H R KAMBIYAVAR ASSOCIATES & SMT.PATRI SASHIKALA K. ADVOCATE) 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, ADVOCATE) : 4 : THIS WRIT PETITION 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. W.P. NO. 105407/2014 : ISHWAR BASALINGAPPA GORANAL AGE. 63 YEARS A/P. BISANAL, PO: GALAGALI TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT ... PETITIONER (BY SRI : H R KAMBIYAVAR ASSOCIATES & SMT.PATRI SASHIKALA K. ADVOCATE) 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, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION 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. THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Memo for having served the writ petitions on Standing Counsel is taken on record and accepted. : 5 : Learned Standing Counsel for respondent – Department has appeared. 2. These writ petitions assail the orders passed by respondent No.1 – Commissioner of Income Tax, Belgaum, under Section 119 (2) (b) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity). 3. Those orders were passed on an application filed by petitioners herein under Section 119 (2) (b) of the Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the Returns. As admittedly, the Returns were filed beyond the prescribed period, respondent No.1 considered those applications and rejected them by the impugned orders. Those orders are assailed in these writ petitions. 4. I have heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for respondents and perused the material on record. : 6 : 5. During the course of submission learned counsel for petitioners has brought to my notice the order dated 09.07.2014 passed in W.P. No.105418/2014 by a learned Single Judge of this Court in which under similar circumstances this Court condoned the delay in filing belated Returns and allowed writ petitions by quashing the impugned orders passed under Section 119 (2) (b) of the Act. He contended that similar orders may be passed in these writ petitions. 6. Learned Standing Counsel for respondents does not deny the fact that in W.P. No.105418/2014 disposed on 09.07.2014 this Court had quashed impugned orders passed in that case and had condoned the delay. 7. In that view of the matter, these writ petitions are disposed in terms of the order dated 09.07.2014 passed in W.P. No.105418/2014. In fact these petitioners are also land losers, who lost their land for : 7 : the purpose of Upper Krishna Project and the delay in filing the Returns is on account of the delay in receiving Form No.16-A from the acquiring authorities, who paid compensation to petitioners. For the sake of immediate reference, order dated 09.07.2014 is extracted here as under – “ 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 : 8 : 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 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. : 9 : 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: 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.” 8. In the circumstances, writ petitions are allowed. The impugned orders are quashed. As the delay in filing the Returns is not on account of any deliberate or intentional reason, but due to bonafide circumstances respondent No.2 is directed to process the Returns filed by petitioners for the assessment year : 10 : 2010-11 in accordance with law in an expeditious manner. It is always open to the Assessing Authority to call for information, if any, with regard to the claims made by petitioners. Sd/- JUDGE hnm "