R Ramesha v. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax

- 1e-HC-KAR( NC:(2026:KHC:44616( WP(No.(24169(of(2026( CNR:(KAHC010531152026( INATHEAHIGHACOURTAOFAKARNATAKAAATABENGALURUA THADATEDATHISATHEA19 DAYAOFAAUGUST,A2026A BEFOREA THEAHON'BLEAMR.AJUSTICEABAMASHYAMAPRASADA WRITAPETITIONANO.A24169AOFA2026A(T-IT)A BETWEEN:A R-RAMESHA-AGED-ABOUT-72-YEARS-S/O-ESHWAR-RAO-@-ESHWARAPPA-TH-NO.169/2,-4 MAIN-ROAD,- TH-7 CROSS,-CHAMARAJPET,- BANGALORE-560018- …PETITIONER- (BY-SRI.-AJAY-J-NANDALIKE.,-ADVOCATE-A/W-SRI.-PURUSHOTHAM-R.,-ADVOCATE)- AND:A Digitally 1. CHIEF-COMMISSIONER-OF-INCOME-TAX signed by (CCIT)-BENGALURU-1, VANAMALA AN-AUTHORITY-UNDER-SECTION-116N OF-INCOME-TAX-ACT,-1961,Location: HIGH CENTRAL-REVENUE-BUILDING, COURT OF QUEENS-ROAD,-BENGALURU-560001. KARNATAKA

¶2PRINCIPAL-COMMISSIONER OF-INCOME-TAX, BENGALURU-3, AN-AUTHORITY-U/S-116-OF INCOME-TAX-ACT,-1961, TH-BMTC-BUILDING,-5 BLOCK, --e2e-e HC-KAR( NC:(2026:KHC:44616( WP(No.(24169(of(2026( CNR:(KAHC010531152026( ( KORAMANGALA,-BANGALORE-560095.--

3.e THE-INCOME-TAX-OFFICER,-WARD-2(2)(5)-BENGALURU,-THE-ASSESSING-OFFICER-UNDER-INCOME-TAX,-ACT,-1961-BMTC-BUILDING,-80-FEET-ROAD-KORAMANGALA,-BENGALURU-560095.-…RESPONDENTS-(BY-SRI.M.-THIRUMALESH.,-ADVOCATE-A/W-SRI.-NIRMAL-MATHEW.,-ADVOCATE)-THIS-WP-IS-FILED-UNDER-ARTICLES-226-AND-227-OF-THE-CONSTITUTION-OF-INDIA-PRAYING-TO-DIRECTING-THE-RESPONDENTS-TO-CONDONE-THE-DELAY-CAUSED-IN-FILING-THE-REVISED-RETURN-OF-INCOME-BY-THE-PETITIONER-FOR-THE-YEAR-2019-20,-VIDE-ANNEXURE-G;-II)-ISSUE-A-WRIT-OF-MANDAMUS-OR-DIRECTION-IN-THE-NATURE-OF-WRIT-OF-MANDAMUS-DIRECTING-THE-RESPONDENTS-TO-REFUND-THE-ENTIRE-TAX-COLLECTED-BY-THE-RESPONDENTS-BACK-TO-THE-PETITIONER-VIDE-ANNEXURE-F,-ALONG-WITH-APPLICABLE-INTEREST-FROM-THE-DATE-OF-DEPOSIT-TILL-ACTUAL-PAYMENT-TO-THE-PETITIONER,-IN-TERMS-OF-THE-ORDER-PASSED-BY-THIS-HONBLE-COURT.-THIS-PETITION,-COMING-ON-FOR-PRELIMINARY-HEARING,-THIS-DAY,-ORDER-WAS-MADE-THEREIN-AS-UNDER:-

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

ORAL ORDER The petitioner, as the legal heirs of Mr. K. Krishnam Raju and Mrs. Lakshmamma, assert title over an extent of 3 acres 20 guntas in Sy.No.87/3 and Sy.No.87/4 of Kothanur Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk [the subject lands]. M/s. Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board [KIADB] has acquired the subject lands, and the surrounding lands under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966. The payment of compensation for acquisition is delayed with dispute over the petitioner's claim to the subject lands, but this dispute is ultimately resolved [as asserted by the petitioner] with a decree in their favour. The petitioner is categorical that M/s. KIADB has deposited the compensation payable after this decree.

¶2The petitioner who had filed Returns for the assessment year 2019-20, have filed their

revised Returns in the year 2025 [after the compensation is credited to their account]. The petitioner seeks directions to the respondents [including the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - the second respondent] to condone the delay in filing the revised returns and refund the TDS effected by M/s. KIADB asserting that in view of Section 96 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 [for short, 'the Act of 2013'], the compensation paid towards acquisition of land would be exempt from tax.

¶3Mr. Ajay J Nandalike, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that when the petitioner has filed their revised returns, the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer has caused the Communication dated

27.01.2026 addressed to Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-03 referring to the petitioner's application dated

12.01.2026 and informing the petitioner that the application and the enclosures are forwarded to the office of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-03. The learned counsel submits that in similar circumstances, this Court by Order dated

31.10.2025 in writ petition in W.P.No.26990/2025, has interfered with the refusal to condone delay directing the Authorities to refund the entire tax collected and that the petitioner would be entitled for similar relief in the present circumstances as well.

¶4Mr. M. Thirumalesh, a learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents who is assisted by Mr. Nirmal Mathew, the learned standing counsel for the respondents who accept notice for the respondents, is heard on the terms for disposal of the petition. The learned Senior Standing Counsel submits that this Court could examine

disposing of the petition with liberty to the petitioner to file a certified copy of this Order with the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-03 [the second respondent] for consideration of his application.

¶5This Court, on a careful consideration of the circumstances and the submissions, and because it is brought out to this Court's satisfaction that a separate application for condonation of delay is not filed with the second respondent, must opine that there must be interference with liberty to the petitioner to file a certified copy of this Order with the second respondent. Further, this Court is of the opinion that the second respondent, upon receipt of the certified copy, must verify the petitioner's application for condonation of delay by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer and decide on the petitioner's request for condonation in the light of factors such as that:

 he asserts ownership to the subject land based on a decree, and  he has been admitted to compensation which is exempt under Section 96 of the Act of 2013 only in the year 2025 after the resolution of the civil dispute. ORDER [A] The petition stands disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a certified copy of this Order with the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru -3 [the second respondent], who shall examine the records to verify petitioner's application under Section 119(2)(b) of the IT Act for condonation of delay in filing the revised Returns for the assessment year 2019-2020. [B] The second respondent shall decide on the application/s and communicate the decision to the petitioner within three [3] months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Sd/-(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE AN/-