Wp/101728/2016 Of Sri.yallappa v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKADHARWAD BENCH Dated this the 28[th]day of March 2016 Before THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATILWrit Petition Nos.101/28101729/2016 (I! " Between 1. Sri Yallappa, S/o RamannaYandigeri, Age: 66 years,At Kasaba Rolli,Tq: Bilagi, District Bagalkot. 2. Smt. Rukmavva, W/o YallappaYandigeri, Age: 53 years,At Kasaba Roll,Tq: Bilagi, District Bagalkot. ...Petitioners (By Sri H.Kambiyavar, Advocate) And 1. The Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Opp. Civil Hospital,Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Road,Belagavi. 2. [he Income Tax Officer,Ward-I, Bagalkot. ... Respondents (By Sri Y.V.Raviraj, Advocate) These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227of the Constitution of India praying to direct the l[st]respondent herein to consider the application dated26.06.2019 filed by the petitioners vide Annexures-C & Clrespectively and direct the second respondent herein toconsider the returns filed by the petitioner dated 25.05.2015 vide Annexures-B and B1 to this writ petition and to allowthe claim of refund made by the petitioner. These writ petitions coming on for PreliminaryHearing this day the Court made the following:- ORDER Petitioners are agriculturists. Their lands have beenacquired for public purpose that is to say, for the purposeof Upper Krishna Project during the year 2005-06. Theyhave been paid compensation. At the time of depositingthe compensation, the Special Land Acquisition Officerhas deducted tax at source to the tune of Rs.64,549/- onthe interest amount of Rs.6,49,490/-. As the Special LandAcquisition Officer had deducted TDS amount whilepaying compensation, petitioners claim to have filedreturns of income for the Assessment Year 2O11-12 on29.05.2015 claiming refund of the TDS amount byenclosing the original TDS certificate along with returns.As there was delay in filing the returns, they had filedapplications under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act.The said applications have been pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax, Belagavi. Hence, thepetitioners have approached his Court seeking a directionto the 1[st]respondent to consider the applications dated26.06.2015 filed by the petitioner as per Annexures-C &C1 and the returns submitted by them so that the claimfor refund could be allowed. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitionersand learned counsel representing the respondents-Revenue authorities. 3. It is not in dispute that applications filed as perAnnexures-C & Cl and the returns submitted as perAnnexures-B and B1 with a request for refund of the taxdeducted at source has not been considered sotar. If thatis so, respondent No.1 has to take steps to expeditiouslyconsider the applications Annexures-C & Cl and passappropriate orders in accordance with law. 4. Hence, these writ petitions are allowed in part. Respondent No.1 is directed to consider the applications within two months from the date of receipt of the order.Whereupon it will be open for the petitioners to pursue thematter in respect of returns filed as per Annexures-B andBl and the respondent will pass appropriate orders inaccordance with law within a period of three monthsthereafter. Ordered accordingly. Sd/-JUDGE Kms