Sri Mandya Ramalinge Gowda Ashokananda V. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Bengaluru - 1 and Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 and TPS, Mandya

WP/11933/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Sri Mandya Ramalinge Gowda Ashokananda, the petitioner, who sought to quash an order under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which denied the condonation of delay in filing a revised return for the assessment year 2018-19. The petitioner argued that the delay should be condoned to allow filing of a revised return to declare income in accordance with the law. The respondents were the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru, and the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 and TPS, Mandya. The court referenced a similar case, C.M. Uma Vs. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, to support its decision to allow the petition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 822250 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 08-12-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: C.M. Uma Vs. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax 6 W.P.No.19197/2024 dated 08.08.2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: M THIRUMALESH
• Assessee Lawyers: RAVISHANKAR
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Income Tax; Revised return; Writ of Certiorari; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 119(2)(b)

Judgement Text

" - 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51788 WP No. 11933 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 11933 OF 2025 (T-IT) BETWEEN: SRI MANDYA RAMALINGE GOWDA ASHOKANANDA, SON OF LATE SRI RAMALINGE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, NO. 2075, 1ST CROSS, SUBASHNAGAR, MANDYA, MANDYA – 571 401 PAN ADDPA29468 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVI SHANKAR S. V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. CHIIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BENGALURU - 1, THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BENGALURU 1, KARNATAKA AND GOA, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, QUEEN’S ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 AND TPS, MANDYA, CAUVERY PARK ROAD, MANDYA – 571 401 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. THIRUMALESH, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 119(2)(b) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT) DTD. 28.06.2024 PASSED BY THE R-1 IN DIN NO. ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-25/1066190690(1) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19 (ANNX-A) AND ETC., Printed from counselvise.com Digitally signed by MADHURI S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51788 WP No. 11933 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:- “i) Issue a writ of certiorari or a direction in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the order under section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) dated 28.06.2024 passed by the Respondent No.1 in DIN No.:ITBA/COM/F/17/2024- 25/1066190690(1) for the assessment year 2018-19 (Annexure-A). ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or a direction in the nature of writ of mandamus directing to the respondents condone the delay in filing the revised return of income for the assessment year 2018-19 and to permit the petitioner to file a revised return of income in order to declare income in accordance with law. iii) And pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. Though several contentions have been urged by both sides in support of their respective claims, the issue in controversy Printed from counselvise.com - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51788 WP No. 11933 of 2025 between the parties is directly and squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of C.M. Uma Vs. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax – W.P.No.19197/2024 dated 08.08.2024, wherein it is held as under: “9. In the result, the points formulated above are answered as hereunder:- (i) Section 96 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 is applicable to compensation for land acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956; (ii) The compensation for acquisition of land under the National Highways Act, 1956, is exempt from payment of TDS / income tax. (iii) The respondent erred in refusing to condone the delay in filing the Income Tax returns and consequently, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, deserves to be allowed. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned order at Annexure-C dated 28.06.2024 passed by the respondent deserves to be set aside and the application filed by the petitioner on 27.03.2023 under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Printed from counselvise.com - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51788 WP No. 11933 of 2025 deserves to be allowed by condoning the delay in filing the income tax returns for assessment year 2022-23 and necessary directions are to be issued in this regard. 11. In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER (i) Petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned order at Annexure-C dated 28.06.2024 passed by the respondent is hereby quashed. (iii) The application filed by the petitioner on 27.03.2023 under Section 119(2)(b) of the I.T.Act 1961, is hereby allowed and delay stands condoned. (iv) The respondent is directed to receive the income tax returns submitted by the petitioner and proceed further in accordance with law.” 4. Under these circumstances, in the instant case, the petitioner intends to file revised returns and in the light of the aforesaid judgment, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and the petition is disposed of by issuing certain directions. 5. In the result, I pass the following: Printed from counselvise.com - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51788 WP No. 11933 of 2025 ORDER i) The petition is hereby allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 28.06.2024 passed by respondent No.1 at Annexure-A, is hereby quashed. iii) The respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to file revised return of income for assessment year 2018-19 and proceed further in accordance with law. iv) To enable the petitioner to file revised returns as stated supra, the respondents are directed to take necessary steps to open the e-portal in favour of the petitioner. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE BMC List No.: 2 Sl No.: 29 Printed from counselvise.com "