SRI.YALLAPPA S/O RAMANNA YANDIGERI, V. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,

WP/100573/2017

AI Insights

The case involves Sri. Yallappa and Smt. Rukmavva Yandigeri, agriculturists whose lands were acquired for the Upper Krishna Project, seeking judicial relief against the Income Tax Department's decision to reject their application for condonation of delay in filing income tax returns. The petitioners had initially approached the court due to the delay in the Income Tax Department's response to their application for condonation of delay under Section 119 (2) (b) of the Income Tax Act, which was allowed. However, their subsequent application was rejected without a hearing, leading to the current writ petitions. The court found that although the respondents had provided opportunities for the petitioners to appear, they failed to do so, yet considering the circumstances, granted them another opportunity to present their case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 726935 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 20-04-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Constitution of India, Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: Y V RAVIRAJ
• Assessee Lawyers: H R KAMBIYAVAR
• Keywords: Agriculturists; Condonation of delay; Income Tax; Tax deducted at source; Upper Krishna Project
• Section: 119(2)(b); 226; 227

Judgement Text

": 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. SREENIVASE GOWDA WRIT PETITION NOS. 100573/2017 AND 100574/2017 (T-IT) BETWEEN: 1. SRI.YALLAPPA S/O RAMANNA YANDIGERI, AT: KASSABA ROLLI, TQ: BILAGI, DIST. BAGALKOT, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS. 2. SMT.RUKMAVVA W/O YALLAPPA YANDIGERI, AT: KASSABA ROLLI, TQ: BILAGI, DIST. BAGALKOT. AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS. ... PETITIONERS (By Sri H. R. KAMBIYAVAR, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, OPP. CIVIL HOSPITAL, DR.B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BELAGAVI. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-I, BAGALKOT. ... RESPONDENTS (By Sri Y. V. RAVIRAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R1&R2) : 2 : THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 14-09-2016 VIDE BEARING F.NO. YALLAPPA YANDIGERI/119(2) (b) CIT/BGV/2016-1254 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND ORDER DATED 14-09-2016 VIDE BEARING NO. RUKMAVVA YANDIGERI 119(2) (b) CIT/BGV/2016-17/1266 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE- G1 ETC. THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER The petitioners have preferred these writ petitions seeking the following reliefs. “call for the records in o.s.no.42/2011 on the file of civil judge and jmfc, mundargi and issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order in the like nature quashing the order dated:09.12.2016 made on interim application bearing no.17 for appointing court commissioner in o.s.no.42/2011 passed by the civil judge and jmfc, mundargi produced at annexure-g, as the same being not : 3 : sustainable in law and consequently allow interim application for appointing court commissioner filed by the petitioners in o.s.no.42/2011 as prayed for therein”. 2. Heard Sri. H. R. Kambiyavar the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Y.V.Raviraj the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the writ petition and the Annexures produced along with the writ petition. 3. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are the petitioners are agriculturists and their lands have been acquired for public purpose i.e., for Upper Krishna Project prior to 2005-06. The petitioners have been paid compensation. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer deducted tax at source to the tune of Rs. 64,549/- on the interest. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that they filed the Income Tax returns on 25-5-2015 for the assessment year 2011-12 claiming refund of tax deducted at source by enclosing original TDS certificate along with the income tax return. As there was delay in filing the income tax return, they had field : 4 : application under Section 119 (2) (b) of Income Tax Act before the respondent No.1. As respondent No.1 did not take steps to dispose of the said application filed by the petitioners, the petitioners had approached this court through W.P. Nos. 101728-29/2016 (T-IT) seeking direction to respondent No.1 to consider and dispose of their application on merits and in accordance with law. This Court by order dated 28-3-2016 allowed the said writ petitions and directed respondent No.1 to consider the applications filed by the petitioners within two months from the date of receipt of copy of the order with an observation that it is open for the petitioners to pursue the matter in respect of the income tax returns filed by them and directed the respondent No.1 to pass appropriate order in accordance with law within three months. 5. The grievance of the petitioners in the present writ petitions is that respondent No.1, by impugned order dated 14-9-2016 produced at Annexure-G rejected the application filed by the petitioners under Section 119 (2) (b) of the Income Tax Act, without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order passed : 5 : by the respondent No.1 at Annexure-G with a direction to the respondent No.1 to re-consider their application on merits and in accordance with law after providing them an opportunity of hearing. 6. On the other hand Sri. Y.V.Raviraj the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that though the respondent No.1 had provided an opportunity to the petitioners to appear before him on 27-6-2016 along with copies of Bank statements, justification and explanation for the delay in filing the income tax returns, the petitioners failed to appear before the respondent No.1. Further on the request made by the petitioners, respondent No.1 once again listed the appellation on 7-7-2016 and again on further request made by the petitioners he adjourned the matter to 22-7-2016. As the petitioners failed to appear before the respondent No.1 and substantiate their claim, the respondent No.1, having left with no other option, had to pass the impugned order Annexure-G rejecting the application filed by the petitioners under Section 119 (2) (b) of Income Tax Act. Hence, the learned counsel for the respondents prays for dismissal of the writ petitions. : 6 : 7. As already stated, the petitioners are agriculturists by profession and they have lost their valuable lands under Upper Krishna Project. 8. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, while depositing the compensation amount awarded for acquisition of lands of the petitioners deducted certain amount at source. The petitioners submitted the returns and sought for refund of the amount deducted at source. As there was delay in filing the returns, an application was filed by the petitioners under Section 119 (2) (b) of Income Tax Act for condonation of delay in filing the returns and regularize the returns. When said application of the petitioners was not considered by the respondent No.1 for long time, the petitioners had approached this court through W.P. Nos. 101728- 29/2016 seeking direction to the respondent No.1 to consider and dispose off their application. This Court allowed the said writ petitions and directed the respondent No.1 to consider and dispose of their application in accordance with law by granting liberty to the petitioners to pursue the mater in respect of the returns filed as per Annexures-B and B1. : 7 : 9. Perusal of para No.3 of the impugned order at Annexure-G would show though respondent No.1 had granted sufficient opportunity, the petitioners did not appear before respondent No.1 to substantiate their claim, as such I do not see any error in the order passed by the first respondent at Annexure-G. However, considering the background of the petitioners that they are agriculturists by profession, have lost their valuable lands under Upper Krishna Project, I am of the view that ends of justice would be met if one more opportunity is given to the petitioners by directing respondent No.1 to re-consider the applications filed by the petitioners in the event of the petitioners approaching him along with relevant documents. Hence, the following, ORDER Writ petitions stand allowed. The impugned orders dated 14-09-2016 passed by the respondent No.1 at Annexure-G & G1 are set aside subject to the following conditions. i. In the event of petitioners approaching the first respondent along with relevant documents in support of their application : 8 : filed under Section 119 (2) (b) of the Income Tax Act within two months from the date of a copy of this order, the respondent No.1 shall re-consider their application on merit and in accordance with law within three months from the date of petitioners filing documents by providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Sd/- JUDGE Meti. "