SRI MANDYA RAMALINGE GOWDA ASHOKNANDA V. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF

WP/724/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Sri Mandya Ramalinge Gowda Ashokananda, the petitioner, who sought to quash an order passed by the Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bengaluru, which rejected his application for condonation of delay in filing income tax returns for the assessment year 2018-19. The petitioner argued that due to bona fide reasons and unavoidable circumstances, he was unable to file the returns within the prescribed period. Additionally, he contended that under the National Highways Act, 1956, and the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, he was not liable to pay income tax or deduct TDS on the compensation received. The High Court found that the 1st respondent had not adequately considered these contentions and thus remitted the matter for fresh consideration.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 733100 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 12-03-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. vs. M/s.Sri.Balaji Corporate Services and Others
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, National Highways Act, 1956, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: E I SANMATHI
• Assessee Lawyers: RAVISHANKAR
• Keywords: Compensation; Condonation of delay; Exemption from tax; Income Tax Return; TDS
• Section: 119(2)(b); 105(3)

Judgement Text

" - 1 - NC: 2024:KHC:10033 WP No. 724 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 724 OF 2024 (T-IT) BETWEEN: SRI MANDYA RAMALINGE GOWDA ASHOKNANDA, SON OF LATE SRI RAMALINGE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, NO. 2075, 1ST CROSS, SUBASHNAGAR, MANDYA, MANDYA -571401. PAN: ADDPA2946B …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVI SHANKAR S. V.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, BENGALURU-1, KARNATAKA AND GOA, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 1 AND TPS, MANDYA, CAUVERY PARK ROAD, MANDYA - 571401. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:10033 WP No. 724 of 2024 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER U/S 119(2)(b) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT) DTD 15.05.2023 PASSED BY THE R1 IN F.NO.COND.119(2)(b)/ ASHOKANANDA/ CCIT/ BNG-1/ 2023-24/ 397 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19 ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER In this petition, petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned order at Annexure-A dated 15.05.2023 passed by the 1st respondent whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was rejected. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. 3. A perusal of the material on record indicate that in relation to assessment year 2018-2019, the petitioner-assessee filed an application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, seeking condonation of delay in fling the Income Tax Returns. According to the petitioner, on account of bona fide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, it was not possible for the petitioner to file the Income Tax Returns within the - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:10033 WP No. 724 of 2024 prescribed period and as such it is the case of genuine hardship, the delay in filing the Income Tax Returns deserves to be condoned. It was also contended that by virtue of the provisions of The National Highways Act, 1956 and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short 'RFCTLARR Act'), the petitioner would not be liable to pay income tax nor deduct TDS on the compensation amount awarded in favour of the petitioner. However, the said contention of the petitioner was rejected by the 1st respondent by passing the impugned order, which is assailed in the present petition. 4. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment of the HON'BLE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT IN THE CASE OF BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD., VS. M/S.SRI.BALAJI CORPORATE SERVICES AND OTHERS in Writ Appeal No.890/2022 and connected matters dated 27.09.2023 in order to contend that the petitioner-assessee would neither be liable to pay income tax on the compensation amount - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:10033 WP No. 724 of 2024 nor be liable to deduct TDS on the compensation amount payable in favour of the assessee. 5. My attention is also invited to Section 105(3) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 r/w the Fourth Schedule to the said Act as well as the Notifications, Guidelines, Circulars, Orders etc., passed by the Central Government / Highway Authorities, including Gazette Notification dated 28.08.2015, which makes the said Act applicable to the National Highways Act which is notified as item No.7 in the Fourth Schedule. It is therefore contended, that the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent deserves to be set aside and the application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed by exempting the petitioner from payment of income tax and also from deduction of TDS. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would support the impugned order and submit that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. A perusal of the impugned order indicate that the various aforesaid contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner regarding condonation of delay and exemption from payment of - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:10033 WP No. 724 of 2024 income tax and from deduction of TDS have not been considered or appreciated by the 1st respondent while passing the impugned order which deserves to be set aside and the matter remitted to 1st respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. 8. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) Petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned order at 'Annexure-A' is hereby set aside. (iii) Matter is remitted back to the 1st respondent for reconsideration afresh, in accordance with law, bearing in mind the observations made in this order and provisions of Section 105(3) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 r/w the Fourth Schedule of the said Act, as well as the judgment of the HON'BLE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT IN THE CASE OF BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD., VS. M/S.SRI.BALAJI CORPORATE SERVICES AND OTHERS in Writ Appeal No.890/2022 and connected matters dated 27.09.2023 (iv) All rival contentions are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same. - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:10033 WP No. 724 of 2024 (v) The petitioner undertakes to appear before the 1st respondent on 03.04.2024 without awaiting further notice. (vi) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to file additional pleadings, documents etc., before the 1st respondent who shall proceed further and provide sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and conclude the proceedings within a period of three months from 03.04.2024. Sd/- JUDGE AP CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15.1 "