Allowed¶57

Sri Mandya Ramalinge Gowda Ashokananda v. Chiief Commissioner of Income Tax

Karnataka HC8 Dec 2025WP/11933/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC, W.P. No. 11933 of 2025 (T-IT), decided 08.12.2025, S.R. Krishna Kumar J. Condonation of delay; Section 119(2)(b) Income Tax Act 1961; revised return; assessment year 2018-19; Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Bengaluru-1; writ of certiorari and mandamus; followed C.M. Uma W.P.No.19197/2024 (08.08.2024) on exemption of National Highways Act land-acquisition compensation from TDS/income tax; impugned order dated 28.06.2024 quashed; direction to open e-portal for filing revised return.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the order dated 28.06.2024 passed by respondent No.1 (Annexure-A); respondents directed to permit the petitioner to file a revised return of income for assessment year 2018-19 and to take steps to open the e-portal for that purpose. ¶57

Sri Mandya Ramalinge Gowda Ashokananda Vs Chiief Commissioner… — Income Tax | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶57

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 28.06.2024 passed by respondent No.1 under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2018-19 ought to be quashed and the petitioner permitted to file a revised return of income for that year.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

The issue in controversy between the parties is directly and squarely covered by this Court's judgment in C.M. Uma Vs. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (W.P.No.19197/2024, dated 08.08.2024).

¶35

Key takeaways

In view of the C.M. Uma judgment and the petitioner's intention to file revised returns, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and the petition is disposed of by issuing certain directions.ratio¶51
The petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 28.06.2024 passed by respondent No.1 at Annexure-A is quashed.ratio¶58
The respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to file revised return of income for assessment year 2018-19 and proceed further in accordance with law.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (S.R. Krishna Kumar, J.) allowed a writ petition challenging an order under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 28.06.2024 (DIN No. ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-25/1066190690(1)) passed by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-1 for assessment year 2018-19. Finding the controversy "directly and squarely covered" by its earlier judgment in C.M. Uma Vs. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (W.P.No.19197/2024, dated 08.08.2024) — in which the Court had held that compensation for land acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956 is exempt from TDS/income tax and that refusal to condone delay in filing returns was erroneous — this Court quashed the impugned order at Annexure-A and directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to file a revised return of income for AY 2018-19, to proceed further in accordance with law, and to take necessary steps to open the e-portal in the petitioner's favour.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:51788 WP No. 11933 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 11933 OF 2025 (T-IT)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI MANDYA RAMALINGE GOWDA ASHOKANANDA, SON OF LATE SRI RAMALINGE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, NO. 2075, 1^ST CROSS, SUBASHNAGAR, MANDYA, MANDYA – 571 401 PAN ADDPA29468

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. RAVI SHANKAR S. V., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by MADHURI S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

CHIIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BENGALURU - 1, THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BENGALURU 1, KARNATAKA AND GOA, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, QUEEN’S ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001

¶14

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 AND TPS, MANDYA, CAUVERY PARK ROAD, MANDYA – 571 401

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. M. THIRUMALESH, ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 119(2)(b) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT) DTD. 28.06.2024 PASSED BY THE R-1 IN DIN NO. ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-25/1066190690(1) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19 (ANNX-A) AND ETC.,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:51788 WP No. 11933 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:-

¶25

“i) Issue a writ of certiorari or a direction in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the order under section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) dated 28.06.2024 passed by the Respondent No.1 in DIN No.:ITBA/COM/F/17/202425/1066190690(1) for the assessment year 2018-19 (Annexure-A).

¶26

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or a direction in the nature of writ of mandamus directing to the respondents condone the delay in filing the revised return of income for the assessment year 2018-19 and to permit the petitioner to file a revised return of income in order to declare income in accordance with law.

¶27

iii) And pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶29

counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶30

Though several contentions have been urged by both

¶31

sides in support of their respective claims, the issue in controversy

¶32

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:51788 WP No. 11933 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

between the parties is directly and squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of C.M. Uma Vs. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax – W.P.No.19197/2024 dated 08.08.2024, wherein it is held as under:

¶36

“9. In the result, the points formulated above are answered as hereunder:-

¶37

(i) Section 96 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 is applicable to compensation for land acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956;

¶38

(ii) The compensation for acquisition of land under the National Highways Act, 1956, is exempt from payment of TDS / income tax.

¶39

(iii) The respondent erred in refusing to condone the delay in filing the Income Tax returns and consequently, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, deserves to be allowed.

¶40

10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned order at Annexure-C dated 28.06.2024 passed by the respondent deserves to be set aside and the application filed by the petitioner on 27.03.2023 under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961,

¶41

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:51788 WP No. 11933 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

deserves to be allowed by condoning the delay in filing the income tax returns for assessment year 2022-23 and necessary directions are to be issued in this regard.

¶45

11. In the result, I pass the following:-

¶46

ORDER

¶47

(i) Petition is hereby allowed.

¶48

(ii) The impugned order at Annexure-C dated 28.06.2024 passed by the respondent is hereby quashed.

¶49

(iii) The application filed by the petitioner on 27.03.2023 under Section 119(2)(b) of the I.T.Act 1961, is hereby allowed and delay stands condoned.

¶50

(iv) The respondent is directed to receive the income tax returns submitted by the petitioner and proceed further in accordance with law.”

¶51

Under these circumstances, in the instant case, the petitioner intends to file revised returns and in the light of the aforesaid judgment, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and the petition is disposed of by issuing certain directions.

¶52

In the result, I pass the following:

¶53

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC:51788 WP No. 11933 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

ORDER

¶57

i) The petition is hereby allowed .

¶58

ii) The impugned order dated 28.06.2024 passed by respondent No.1 at Annexure-A, is hereby quashed.

¶59

iii) The respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to file revised return of income for assessment year 2018-19 and proceed further in accordance with law.

¶60

iv) To enable the petitioner to file revised returns as stated supra , the respondents are directed to take necessary steps to open the e-portal in favour of the petitioner.

¶61

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶62

BMC

¶63

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 29

Sri Mandya Ramalinge Gowda Ashokananda v. Chiief Commissioner of Income Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Mandya Ramalinge Gowda Ashokananda v. Chiief Commissioner of Income Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devanatha Y. K. Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 7 (2) (5)

M R Pro Tech Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Lenovo Global Technology (India) Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Sri Vishwavallabha Theertha Swamiji Vs the Income-Tax Officer

The Karnataka Co. Op Credit Society Ltd. Vs the Income Tax Officer

Shri Muniswamy Gowda Muralidhar Vs Additional Commissioner of Central Tax