Sri Hari Rao & Co. V. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad -111 and The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ward-6(1), Hyderabad and The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

WP/22758/2005

AI Insights

The case revolves around a writ petition filed by Sri Hari Rao & Co. against the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad, and other officials, challenging the rejection of their refund claim for tax deducted at source on rental income. The petitioner had initially filed a timely income tax return declaring a business loss and subsequently filed a revised return claiming a higher loss and a refund for TDS on rental income. The Income Tax Department rejected the refund claim citing it as 'supplementary' and thus not eligible under the conditions specified in the Circular dated 12.10.1993. However, the petitioner argued that the conditions had been relaxed in a later Circular dated 30.10.2003, which was applicable to their case. The court agreed with the petitioner, noting that the Department failed to consider the later Circular when rejecting the refund claim.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 797825 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 14-09-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Article 226 of the Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: B SAPNA REDDY
• Assessee Lawyers: DUNDU SASHANK MANMOHAN
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Income Tax Refund; Revised return; Tax deducted at source; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 119(2)(b); 143

Judgement Text

"Between: lvl/s. Sri Hari Rao & Co., Plot No.106' Hyderabad, rep. by its Partner, Sri Hari Rao ANO a[ 3386 ] Anapathy Complex, Yellareddiguda, ..PETITIONER HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAO (SPecial Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY ,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITION NO: 22758 OF 2005 1. The Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax, Hyderabad -111, Hyderabad Z. The nsst. Commissioner of lncome Tax, Ward-6(1), Hyderabad' 5. fne Oeputy Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle-6(1), Hyderabad' ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order dt. 14.03.2005 passed by the 1st respondent as illegal and unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. DUNDU SASHANK MANMOHAN Counsel for the Respondents: M/s. B. SAPNA REDDY' SC FOR INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE IION'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY W.P. No. 2275a of 2OO5 ORDER: /pe' Ho tt'ble Sri Justice P.SAM lrosHr/ Heard Mr. Dundu Sashank Manmohan, Iearned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. B. Sapna Reddy, learned Junior Standing Counsel for lncome Tax Department appearing for respondents. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 14 03.2005 passed by respondent No. 1, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2Xb) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (briefly 'the Act' hereinafter) seeking for condonation of delay in filing the return for Assessment year 2OO|-O2 claiming relund ol Rs 1,89,283/-, has treen rejected. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had filed the original income-tax return on 31.O7 .2OOl for the asse ssment year 2O01-O2 declaring a business loss of Rs.5,OO,0OO/- on estimate basis. The said return was processed under Section 143 of the Act by respondent No.3. The petitioner had subsequently filed revised return on 10.06.2O03 declaring loss of Rs.7,99,934/-. Along with the return, tl-re petitioner had also claimed for refund of tax deducted at source otr rental income on the basis of Form - 16A. As respondent. No.2 had not accepted the revised return, petitioner had Iited an application seeking for condonation of delay in filing the revised return. It is this 2 rejection of revised return and the rejection of the claim of the petitioner for refund of tax deducted at source, which led to filing of the present writ petition. 4. A perus:rl of the impugned Award would reflect tl.at the rejection has bc-en made for the reasons as enumerated, herein under: ' I h:rvc r:onsrdcred the aforesaid submissions made by the lcarned A.R. of th( applicant- I am of the opinion that in the present case the rclcvant condition for condoning the delay vtz., tl,e refun