M/S SOFT AID SERVICE PVT. LTD V. THE COMMISSIONER

WP/42276/2014

AI Insights

The case involves M/s Soft Aid Service Pvt. Ltd., which filed a writ petition against the Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore-III, and the Income Tax Officer-Ward 12 (2), challenging the rejection of their application for condonation of delay in filing a revised return for the assessment year 2011-12. The petitioner originally filed their return claiming TDS and a refund, but due to the deductor's failure to upload TDS details in time, the petitioner filed a revised return along with a request for condonation of delay. The respondent's rejection of this request led to the filing of the writ petition. The court found that the respondent's refusal to condone the delay was unjustified, leading to a miscarriage of justice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 727129 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 22-01-2015
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K V ARAVIND
• Assessee Lawyers: DINESHA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Miscarriage of justice; Refund; Revised return; TDS
• Section: 119(2)(b)

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2015 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL W.P.No. 42276/2014 (T-IT) BETWEEN M/S SOFT AID SERVICE PVT. LTD NO. 701, 5TH MAIN SRINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 050. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI. A.V. SESHACHALAM, AGED 57 YEARS S/O SRI. A. VENKATA SUBBIAH. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI DINESHA P, ADV.) AND 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE-III, C.R. BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR, QUEENS ROAD, BAGALORE-560 001. 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 12 (2) NO. 14/3, RASHTROTHANA BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K V ARAVIND, ADV.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER VIDE ANN-A DATED 16.7.2014 PASSED UNDER SECTION 119[2][b] OF THE ACT AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: 2 ORDER 1. In this petition, petitioner is calling in question the order dated 16.07.2014 vide Annexure-A passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore-III, thereby rejecting the petition filed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act requesting for condonation of delay in filing the revised return of income for the assessment year 2011-12. 2. Petitioner is a Company. It filed original assessment for the year 2011-12 on 22.09.2010 with a claim of TDS in a sum of Rs.1,95,229/- along with a claim for refund of Rs.1,78,694/-. It was urged that during the course of its business of supplying computer systems to various customers, petitioner had supplied the same to the Executive Engineer, Zilla Parishat and the said executive engineer had deducted tax at source and in that background, original returns had been filed showing the amount deducted and seeking for refund. However, it was found that deductor, who was statutorily required to upload the details in terms of returns in Form No.26AS in time to give effect to the TDS made so as to enable the assessee to get credit for the same, has omitted to upload the details in the prescribed form within the prescribed time. 3 3. This was obviously on account of mistake on the part of the deductor. As a result, petitioner having come to know of the same filed a revised return of its income on 04.02.2012 claiming refund of TDS along with an application seeking condonation of delay. However, the respondent has declined to condone the delay by passing the impugned order. In this background, petitioner has approached this Court challenging the said order. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel appearing for the revenue. 5. Reasons assigned by the respondent for declining the prayer for condonation of delay is that the assessee had not claimed the TDS in the original return of income and its assertion that Zilla Parishat had deducted the income tax while making the payment had failed to upload the same made it clear that assessee did have the knowledge of deduction of TDS. It also came to the conclusion that the claim made in the revised return was by way of supplementary claim, hence, it was not a fit case for condonation of delay. 4 6. It is clear from the facts of the case that according to the petitioner, there has been excess payment of tax including the TDS amount. If that is so, the same is required to be refunded because the department can only demand what is lawfully due to it. Though the deductor has committed default in not uploading the TDS amount, the fact remains that if the amount had been indeed paid to the department, there is absolutely no justification to reject the application on the ground that the revised return was submitted belatedly. Explanations offered and the fact and circumstances of the present case require that the delay ought to have been condoned and the matter examined on the materials on record. Respondent – Authority has failed to undertake such an exercise. This has resulted in miscarriage of justice. 7. At this stage, learned counsel for the revenue submits that steps to revise the return would be taken up and in case petitioner were to be liable for any fresh demands to be made by the assessing officer, petitioner cannot take up plea of limitation. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner would not take up such a plea of limitation in such an event. 5 8. In the result and for the foregoing, this writ petition is allowed. Impugned order is set aside. A direction is issued to the respondent to process the revised return submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law. Undertaking given by the petitioner that plea of limitation will not be raised, in case any fresh demands were to be raised by the department, is placed on record. Sd/- JUDGE VP "