By Sri Y v. Raviraj, Advocate For R1&R2

- 1: IN THB HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWADBENCH DATEBRD THIS THE DAY OF APRIL, 2017 BEKORE THR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. SREBNIVASK GOWDA WRIT PETITION NOS. 100573/2017 AND100574/2017 (TIT) BETWEEN: 1.SoRI.YALLAPPA 8/O RAMANNYANDIGERI, AT: KASSABA ROLLI,TQ: BILAGI, DIST. BAGALKOT,AGED ABOUT 73 YBARS.YANDIGERI, AT: KASSABA ROLLI,TQ: BILAGI, DIST. BAGALKOT,AGED ABOUT 73 YBARS. 2.SMT.RUKMAVVA W/O YALLAPPAYANDIGERI, AT: KASSABA ROLLI,TQ: BILAGI, DIST. BAGALKOT.AGED ABOUT 60 YBARS.YANDIGERI, AT: KASSABA ROLLI,TQ: BILAGI, DIST. BAGALKOT.AGED ABOUT 60 YBARS. _. PRHTITIONBRS (By Sri H. R. KAMBIYAVAR, ADVOCATE) AN 1.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,OPP. CIVIL HOSPITAL, DR.B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD,BBELAGAVIOPP. CIVIL HOSPITAL, DR.B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD,BBELAGAVI 2.THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-I, BAGALKOT,WARD-I, BAGALKOT, _ RESPONDENTS (By Sri Y. V. RAVIRAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R1&R2) THRESH WRIT PRTITIONS ARB FILED UNDEARTICLES 296 & 2Y27 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIPRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 14-09-2016VIDE BEARING F.NO. YALLAPPA YANDIGERI/119(2) (b)CIT/BGV/2016-1254.PASSEDBY|THEL RESPONDENTVII) ANNBXURE-GANI)ORDERDATEKD 14-09-2016 VIDK BEARING NO. RUKMAVVYANDIGE RI119(2)|(b)CIT/BGV/2016-17/1266PASSEHKD BY THE RBSPONDEBNT VIDE ANNBXURE-G1 KTC, THERESE #£WRIT PEIITIONS COMING ON ORDERSTHIS|DAY,THECOURTMATL)THEHOLLOWING: ORDER The petitioners have preferred these writ petitionsseeking the following reliefs. “call for the records in o.s.no.42/2011 on thefue of cwil Judge and jmfc, mundargi andissue a writ of certiorart or any other writ ororder in the like nature quashing the orderdated:09.12.2016made.Oninterimapplication bearing no.17 for appointing courtcommissioner in o.s.no.42/2011 passed bythe cil Judge and jmfc, mundargi producedat annexure-g, as the same _ being n sustainable in law and consequently allowinterimapplicationforappointingcourtcommissioner filed by the _ petitioners o0.s.no.42/2011 as prayed for therein’ 2. Heard Sri. H. R. Kambiyavar the learnedcounsel for the petitioners and Sri. Y.V.Raviraj thelearned counsel for the respondents. Perused the writpetition and the Annexures produced along with thewrit petition. 3. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petitionare the petitioners are agriculturists and their lands|have been acquired for public purpose 1i.e., for UpperKrishna Project prior to 2005-06. The petitioners havebeen paid compensation. The Spl. Land AcquisitionOfficer deducted tax at source to the tune of Rs.64,949 /- on the interest 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that they filedthe [Income Tax returns on 25-5-2015 for theassessment year 2011-12 claiming refund of taxdeducted at source by enclosing original TDS certificatealong with the income tax return. As there was delayin filing the income tax return, they had field application under Section 119 (2) (b) of Income Tax Actbefore the respondent No.l. As respondent No.1 didnot take steps to dispose of the said application filed bythe petitioners, the petitioners had approached thiscourt through W.P. Nos. 101728-29/2016 (T-IT)|seeking direction to respondent No.1 to consider anddispose of their application on merits and in accordancewith law. This Court by order dated 28-3-2016allowed the said writ petitions and directed respondentNo.1 to consider the applications filed by the petitionerswithin two months from the date of receipt of copy ofthe order with an observation that it is open for thepetitioners to pursue the matter in respect of theincome tax returns filed by them and directed therespondentNo. 1TOPassappropriateorder.(6accordance with law within three months. application under Section 119 (2) (b) of Income Tax Actbefore the respondent No.l. As respondent No.1 didnot take steps to dispose of the said application filed bythe petitioners, the petitioners had approached thiscourt through W.P. Nos. 101728-29/2016 (T-IT)|seeking direction to respondent No.1 to consider anddispose of their application on merits and in accordancewith law. This Court by order dated 28-3-2016allowed the said writ petitions and directed respondentNo.1 to consider the applications filed by the petitionerswithin two months from the date of receipt of copy ofthe order with an observation that it is open for thepetitioners to pursue the matter in respect of theincome tax returns filed by them and directed therespondentNo. 1TOPassappropriateorder.(6accordance with law within three months. o. The grievance of the petitioners in the presentwrit petitions is that respondent No.1, by impugnedorder dated 14-9-2016 produced at Annexure-G|rejected the application filed by the petitioners undersection 119 (2) (b) of the Income Tax Act, withoutproviding an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.Therefore, the petitioners have approached this Courtseeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order passed by the respondent No.1 at Annexure-G with a directionto the respondent No.1 to re-consider their application|on merits and in accordance with law aiter providingthem an opportunity of hearing. 6. On the other hand Sri. Y.V.Raviraj the learned!counsel appearing for the respondents submits thatthoughtherespondentNo.1hadprovided|86opportunity to the petitioners to appear before him on27-6-2016 along with copies of Bank statements,justification and explanation for the delay in filing theincome tax returns, the petitioners failed to appearbefore the respondent No.l. Further on the requestmade by the petitioners, respondent No.1 once againlisted the appellation on 7-7-2016 and again on furtherrequest made by the petitioners he adjourned thematter to 22-7-2016. As the petitioners failed toappear before the respondent No.1 and _ substantiatetheir claim, the respondent No.1, having left with noother option, had to pass the impugned _ ordAnnexure-G rejecting the application filed by thepetitioners under Section 119 (2) (b) of Income Tax Act,Hence, the learned counsel for the respondents praysfor dismissal of the writ petitions. 7. As already _ stated, the petitioners aragriculturists by profession and they have lost theirvaluable lands under Upper Krishna Project. 8. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, whiledepositing the compensation amount awarded foracquisition of lands of the petitioners deducted certainamount at source. The petitioners submitted thereturns and sought for refund of the amount deductedat source. As there was delay in filing the returns, anapplication was filed by the petitioners under Section119 (2) (b) of Income Tax Act for condonation of delay infiling the returns and regularize the returns. Whensaid application of the petitioners was not consideredby the respondent No.1 tor long time, the petitioners|had approached this court through W.P. Nos. 101728-29/2016 seeking direction to the respondent No.1 toconsider and dispose off their application. This Courtallowed the said writ petitions and directed therespondent No.l to consider and dispose of theirapplication in accordance with law by granting libertyto the petitioners to pursue the mater in respect of thereturns filed as per Annexures-B and Bl. 9. Perusal of para No.3 of the impugned order atAnnexure-G would show though respondent No.1 haderanted sufficient opportunity, the petitioners did notappear before respondent No.1 to substantiate theirclaim, as such I do not see any error in the order passedby the first respondent at Annexure-G. However,considering the background of the petitioners that theyare agriculturists by profession, have lost their valuablelands under Upper Krishna Project, I am of the viewthat ends of justice would be met if one moreopportunity is given to the petitioners’ by directingrespondent No.1 to re-consider the applications filedby the petitioners in the event of the petitionersapproaching him along with relevant documents.Hence, the following, ORDER Writ petitions stand allowed. The impugned orders dated 14-09-2016 passed bythe respondent No.1 at Annexure-G & G1 are set asidesubject to the following conditions. 1.In the event of petitioners approaching thefirst respondent along with relevantdocuments in support of their application Metz1 filed under Section 119 (2) (b) of the IncomeTax Act within two months from the date ofa copy of this order, the respondent No.1Shall re-consider their application on meritand in accordance with law within threemonths from the date of petitioners filingdocuments by providing an opportunity ofhearing to the petitioners. od/-JUDGE