Allowed

Smt. C.M. Uma v. Union of India

Karnataka HC12 Mar 2024WP/3447/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed to quash an order rejecting a condonation of delay application under the Income Tax Act. Court observed the lower authority did not appreciate tax exemption concerns under the RFCTLARR Act and set aside the order for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside and matter remitted to the 2nd respondent for reconsideration afresh considering RFCTLARR Act provisions.

Smt. C.M. Uma Vs Union of India — Income Tax | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:10009 WP No. 3447 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 3447 OF 2024 (T-IT)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. C.M. UMA, W/O LATE CHIDANANDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT SIDDALINGESHWARANILAYA, ADARSHA NAGARA, TUMKUR-572103

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SRINIVASA MURTHY S. R.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶13

Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

¶15

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITON OFFICER NATIONAL HIGH WAY AUTHORITIES, NO.206, SAPTAGIRI EXTENSION, TUMKUR-572 103.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. MADANAN PILLARI, CGC FOR R1; SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. SHOBHIT N. SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:10009 WP No. 3447 of 2024

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-A DTD 16.01.2024 VIDE ORDER NO. DIN, ITBA/CON/F/17/202324/1059768055(1) FOR THE AY 2022-23 DTD 16.01.2024 AND ETC.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

In this petition, petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned order at Annexure-A dated 16.01.2024 passed by the 2^nd respondent whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was rejected.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.

¶25

A perusal of the material on record indicate that in relation to assessment year 2022-2023, 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, due to her husband's ill health and 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 prescribed period and as such it is the case of genuine hardship , the delay in filing the Income Tax

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:10009 WP No. 3447 of 2024

¶27

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 2^nd respondent by passing the impugned order, which is assailed in the present petition.

¶28

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 nor be liable to deduct TDS on the compensation amount payable in favour of the assessee.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:10009 WP No. 3447 of 2024

¶31

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 2^nd 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.

¶32

6. Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents would

¶33

support the impugned order and submit that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶34

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 income tax and from deduction of TDS have not been considered or appreciated by the 2^nd respondent while passing the impugned

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:10009 WP No. 3447 of 2024

¶37

order, which deserves to be set aside and the matter remitted to 2^nd respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.

¶38

In the result, I pass the following:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

(i) Petition is hereby allowed .

¶41

(ii) The impugned order at 'Annexure-A' is hereby set aside. (iii) Matter is remitted back to the 2^nd 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

¶42

(iv) All rival contentions are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.

¶43

(v) The petitioner undertakes to appear before the 2^nd respondent on 03.04.2024 without awaiting further notice.

¶44

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:10009 WP No. 3447 of 2024

¶45

(vi) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to file additional pleadings, documents etc., before 2^nd 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.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

AP CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

Smt. C.M. Uma v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. C.M. Uma v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Gowramma Vs Sri R Ravikumar

Sri Veerabhadreshwara Industrial Vs Sri.L. Vivekananda

Maxworth Realty India Limited Vs Sri.B. Kishore Kumar

Sri Mandya Ramalinge Gowda Ashoknanda Vs the Chief Commissioner of

R Anasuyammya Vs Sri M Thippaiah

Bhavani Glass and Plywood Traders Vs the Income Tax Officer