Sri Seetharamaiah V. Union of India and The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-3

WP/14617/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Sri Seetharamaiah, the petitioner, who filed a writ petition against the Union of India and the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-3, challenging the rejection of his application for condonation of delay in filing income tax returns for the assessment year 2017-18. The petitioner sought a refund of Rs.5,44,960, claiming that the delay was due to his belief that the acquisition of his property by KIADB was exempt from taxes. The High Court, after hearing the arguments, decided to set aside the previous order and remit the case back for a fresh evaluation, allowing the petitioner to submit additional documents.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 821563 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 01-12-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: M THIRUMALESH
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAKASHA
• Keywords: Compulsory Acquisition; Condonation of delay; Income Tax; Reconsideration; Refund claim; TDS
• Section: 119(2)(b); 226

Judgement Text

" - 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49977 WP No. 14617 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 14617 OF 2025 (T-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI SEETHARAMAIAH INDIVIDUAL ASSESSEE PAN NO. GPCPS4979P RESIDING AT: NO.244, SRI. LAKSHMI NARASIMHA SWAMY STREET, GANIGARAPALYA, THALAGATTAPURA, BENGALURU-560062 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRAKASHA M.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT NEW DELHI 2. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-3 BENGALURU-560095 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.M.THIRUMALESH, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE DIN AND ORDER NO. ITBA/COM/F/17/2024- 25/1069752195(1) DTD 17.10.2024 PASSED U/S 119(2)(b) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNX-A TO THE WRIT PETITION. Printed from counselvise.com Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49977 WP No. 14617 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 17.10.2024, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the IT Act’), for the assessment year 2017-18 vide Annexure-A seeking condonation of delay in filing the Income Tax returns with claim of refund of Rs.5,44,960/- was rejected by respondent No.2. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record, in particular the application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner, will indicate that the valid submissions, grounds and reasons have been made out and assigned by the petitioner, who has specifically contended that the belated filing of the returns with claim of refund was due to the opinion of the petitioner that the Printed from counselvise.com - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49977 WP No. 14617 of 2025 acquisition of his property by the KIADB was compulsory acquisition and the same is exempted from taxes and any withhold taxes, if any, prima facie should not be applicable even otherwise any TDS deducted needs to be refunded on filing their IRT and claim made in accordance with such transactions. As such, the respondents committed an error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner, who is before this Court by way of the present petition. It is also submitted that if one more opportunity is granted by setting aside the impugned order, the petitioner would furnish additional documents in support of his claim and the respondents may be directed to reconsider the application filed under Section 119(2)(b) of the IT Act in accordance with law. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be rejected. 5. Though the petitioner has put forth several contentions as regards the application filed under Section 119(2)(b) of the IT Act, in view of the specific assertion on the part of the petitioner that if one more opportunity is provided Printed from counselvise.com - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49977 WP No. 14617 of 2025 to the petitioner to file additional documents, pleadings etc., in support of the said application, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order at Annexure-A and remit the matter back to the respondents for reconsideration afresh of the applications filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) of the IT Act in accordance with law after providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and hearing him. 6. In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER (i) The petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned order at Annexure-A dated 17.10.2024 issued by respondent No.2 is hereby set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted back to respondent No.2 for reconsideration afresh of the applications filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) of the IT Act in accordance with law after providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and hearing him. (iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to file additional pleadings, documents etc., which shall be considered by respondent No.2, who Printed from counselvise.com - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49977 WP No. 14617 of 2025 shall proceed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE VM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6 Printed from counselvise.com "