Sri Yallappa, S/o Ramanna Yandigeri and Smt. Rukmavva, W/o Yallappa Yandigeri V. The Commissioner of Income Tax and The Income Tax Officer, Ward-I, Bagalkot

WP/101728/2016

AI Insights

The case involves two petitioners, Sri Yallappa and Smt. Rukmavva, who are agriculturists from Bagalkot district, Karnataka. Their lands were acquired for the Upper Krishna Project in 2005-06, and they received compensation from which tax was deducted at source. The petitioners filed income tax returns for the Assessment Year 2011-12, claiming a refund for the TDS amount. Due to the delay in filing the returns, they submitted applications under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, which were pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax, Belagavi. The petitioners sought a writ to expedite the consideration of their applications and refund claims.

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 793909 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 28-03-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, Section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: Y V RAVIRAJ
• Assessee Lawyers: H KAMBIYAVAR
• Keywords: Income Tax Return; Land acquisition compensation; TDS refund; Upper Krishna Project
• Section: 119(2)(b); 226; 227

Judgement Text

": 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Dated this the 28th day of March 2016 Before THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL Writ Petition Nos.101728-101729/2016 (T-IT) Between 1. Sri Yallappa, S/o Ramanna Yandigeri, Age: 66 years, At Kasaba Rolli, Tq: Bilagi, District Bagalkot. 2. Smt. Rukmavva, W/o Yallappa Yandigeri, Age: 53 years, At Kasaba Rolli, Tq: Bilagi, District Bagalkot. …Petitioners (By Sri H.Kambiyavar, Advocate) A n d 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) These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the 1st respondent herein to consider the application dated 26.06.2015 filed by the petitioners vide Annexures-C & C1 respectively and direct the second respondent herein to consider the returns filed by the petitioner dated 25.05.2015 : 2 : vide Annexures-B and B1 to this writ petition and to allow the claim of refund made by the petitioner. These writ petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day the Court made the following:- ORDER Petitioners are agriculturists. Their lands have been acquired for public purpose that is to say, for the purpose of Upper Krishna Project during the year 2005-06. They have been paid compensation. At the time of depositing the compensation, the Special Land Acquisition Officer has deducted tax at source to the tune of Rs.64,549/- on the interest amount of Rs.6,45,490/-. As the Special Land Acquisition Officer had deducted TDS amount while paying compensation, petitioners claim to have filed returns of income for the Assessment Year 2011-12 on 25.05.2015 claiming refund of the TDS amount by enclosing the original TDS certificate along with returns. As there was delay in filing the returns, they had filed applications under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act. The said applications have been pending before the : 3 : Commissioner of Income Tax, Belagavi. Hence, the petitioners have approached his Court seeking a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the applications dated 26.06.2015 filed by the petitioner as per Annexures-C & C1 and the returns submitted by them so that the claim for refund could be allowed. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel representing the respondents- Revenue authorities. 3. It is not in dispute that applications filed as per Annexures-C & C1 and the returns submitted as per Annexures-B and B1 with a request for refund of the tax deducted at source has not been considered sofar. If that is so, respondent No.1 has to take steps to expeditiously consider the applications Annexures-C & C1 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 4. Hence, these writ petitions are allowed in part. Respondent No.1 is directed to consider the applications : 4 : within two months from the date of receipt of the order. Whereupon it will be open for the petitioners to pursue the matter in respect of returns filed as per Annexures-B and B1 and the respondent will pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of three months thereafter. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- JUDGE Kms "