Yasodha Rani Rachaputi vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 4

PDF · subscribers
WP/24973/2026HC TelanganaHBHC01051372202612 August 2026Author: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA7 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order dated 24.06.2026 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4. The court reasoned that the issue involved in the present writ petition had been separately decided by the same bench in WP.No.19398 of 2025, decided on 15.07.2026. The court noted that in the previous order, the impugned order of the Principal Commissioner was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer (Respondent No.2). The court found that the explanation for the delay in filing revised returns had already been considered on merits in the previous judgment. Therefore, as a natural consequence, the matter was remitted back to Respondent No.2 (Income Tax Officer) instead of Respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 was directed to permit the petitioner to submit revised Income Tax returns and consider the application on merits. The court also noted that a similar view had been taken by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in other cases.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Yasodha Rani Rachaputi, a retired Junior Telecom Officer, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Telangana challenging an order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Hyderabad, under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This order, dated 24.06.2026, refused to condone the delay in filing revised returns of income for Assessment Years 2020-21 and 2021-22. The petitioner sought to quash this order and consequently sought directions for the Income Tax Officer to compute and grant a refund of tax deducted at source on ex-gratia compensation, along with interest. The petition also sought condonation of delay in filing the revised returns.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4 under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, refusing to condone the delay in filing revised returns for AY 2020-21 and 2021-22, is illegal, perverse, and without jurisdiction? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was illegal and contrary to law, seeking its quashing and setting aside. The petitioner also sought condonation of delay in filing revised returns and a direction for the refund of TDS on ex-gratia compensation. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by the Principal Commissioner and the Income Tax Officer, did not dispute the facts or the previous orders of the High Court. However, they brought to the court's notice that the issue in the present writ petition was similar to a previously decided case by the same bench. The revenue's counsel also submitted that the matter should be remitted back to Respondent No.1 (Principal Commissioner) for considering the application for condonation of delay, rather than directly remitting it to Respondent No.2 (Income Tax Officer).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 119(2)(b),Section 244A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Iu47 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION NO: 24973 0F 2026 Between: AND Yasodha Rani Rachaputi, Wo Sudhakar Nagasuri, aged about 62 years, Occupation: Retired, formerly Junior Telecom Officer, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, R/o Flat No. 504, RVG Nandini Apartments, Gandhinagar, Belide Eswar Lakshmi Hospital, Hyderabad - Telangana - 5OOO8O ...Petitioner The Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax - 4, Hyderabad, Office at Room No. 21 'l , 2nd Floor. A Block, l.T. Tower, A.i. Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500 004. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 13(3), Hyderabad, Office at Aayakar Bhawan, Opposite L. B. Stadium, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad - 5OO OO4 (Jurisdictionai Assessing Officer). The Union of lndia, represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Noih Block, New Delhi - 't'10 001 1 2 3 ...Respondents Petition under Nlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction, more particularly in the nature of a Writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 1st Respondent under Section 119(2Xb) of the lncometax Act, 1961 beanng DIN and Letter No. \TBNCOM|Ft17t2026- 27t10903595i4(1) dated 24.06.2026, and quash and set aside the said impugned order dated 24.06.2026 as being illegal, perverse, without jurisdiction and contrary to law, and consequenfly condone the delay in the filing of the revised returns of income by the petitioner for the Assessment years 2020-21 and 2021-22 under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act, and direct the 2nd Respondent (the jurisdictional Assessing Officer) to compute and grant to the Petitioner the refund of the tax deducted at source on the ex-gratia compensation for the Assessment Years 2020-21 and 2021-22, together with interest under section 2444 ol the Act, withrn such time as this Honble Court may stipulate. l.A. NO: 1OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with the filing of the certrfied copy of the Order dated 24.06 2O26 bearing DtN ITBA/COM lF I N 1 7 I 2026-27/1 0903595 1 4(1 ), fi ted as Annexure p1. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. KAILASH NATH p.S.S , representing Sri. M. NAGA DEEPAK Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 & 2: Sri. KAMASANI SUDHAKAR REDDY, Senior Standing Counsel for INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT Counsel forthe Respondent No.3: Sri. UDAY KUMAR BHAWAT, Junior Standing Counsel for CBIC

The Court made the following: ORDER

IN THE HIGTI COURT FOR THE STA'I'[] OI. 'TELANGANA AT HYDERABA{) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTIC E P.SANI KOSHY AND THE HONOT}RABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSI\G RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.2497,r of 2026 12.08.2026 Between: Ms.Yasodha Rani Rachaputi .Petitit;t'.cr AND The Principal Courmissioner of Incorne Tax-4. f ii,l,:r.rbad rr:d olhers . . . Respondents ORDER: (pcr Hon't'lt \ri,lustice P.Sam Koshy, Heard Mr.Kailash Nath P.S.S., lea;:n.:'l cr,unsel appcaring for Mr.M.Naga I)eepiik. learned counsel for ti:,: I.-,:tit rr-,ner': ir4r.Kamasal: Sudhakar Reddy, learned Senior Stanclirri I r.rr,.ijel lir- th: lt,:or.lrt Tax Department. fbr respondent Nos.1 alrtl -: rrnd i\{l-.UdlLy Kunrar. Bhagwat, learned Juliior Standing Counsei io. {-.31(-. irrr 1.,:sponcicrrr_ No.

3.

Perused the lr:cord The issue involved in the instant writ peiit;()n has beerr scpialeil' decided by the olCer of this Bench in WP.\ri) l9-i9E ol'2025 decicled on 15.07.2026. The operative portion o1 ,i-,,: or.,,lei. passed b.,' this Bench in the afblesaid is for ready referenc,- ir.r r) r..)ii.ir.:d hercunder. 1

2 'I 1,, ririlliu Llriir.'. ,!orse for the respondc nt- [ )eparlment. learned ctLrrsel l,r lh: irclrr r,i, has produced before the CoLtrl another order ir:t..: I r', i e ;r'. , r.. r \ppeilate Tribunal, tlydelahad 'Si\{C' Bench,a i H...ieril,.,.l. ,iarr.l rr :,'.1026. wherein in a batch of appeals the lead rrratt(r []i ',1 l.l \. i.:. - ')') I and 904/HYD/2026. u'he le in sim ilar view had b:err rei,,r'::ic.i n\ ,i . l r'irJh. ln the said judgrnent, i1 appears that similar rreu ha; rl.c, lr.:ei . i,rlec1 earlrer by the Incolne Iar Appellate lrihrrr::i ( i,:rri: li, i ri the case of Shri Sekar (inanaprakasam v' D( ll a . ;,1., r'- - .''\'r)Ine 1-ax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru Berrch ir t r, !.: . \ri llx\irli!, i llalarama and Murthy Ranqappa v. Incomc Tar ()fiirer. \\rrtr r- 'iherein the Coordinate [:]enches across the J,.U|1rr. irii.,,. ! -]r,,' i,. ,- l and condoned the delar !r ,r :,1 it,. r r,,csaid reasons and also taking into c,lnsideration ,ri)unir\. : lie irrii,- I to allou the instant urit petiticn. 1'he impugned ,111s-r pa.'e.1 t-\ i.';:..,,,!i;,rt No.l under Section Il9(2)(b) ofthe lncome far. \c 9ir I lr.. , ,- DIN and Letter No.lTBA/C'OMIF/1712026- l()ll l()11''ir l'rli:' li lrt:rl 12.06.2026. for the Assessmerlt \lears 2020- I I rl .l I Il ll. r r :.' .; ,:rshed alld set aside. The matlcr ;tands remitted ,r) r.-..ir!r , :r t i,, i. r.' pctitioner herein is pennifled to filelsubmit icr i-rrc I ,,,. rr.:'Ir . i ,,t !r]:. l hereafter. the respondelrl No I is directed to .j,'rl: .je! i j! .a:t I I , :; iler olt merits." I. I ,..ar r c,l ,r,r !r , r' .lppearing on either side does not dispute the rlecrrli:il 1., :i is ,-] "r.;r '.-'lcrred to above. Horvel'er, learned counsel ilppeii.i g r , .,.: , i . ,,al1ies brings to the Ilotice of the Bench that iLct rl-rrr tir-' issri' i' -:)e insolai r'rs ,1,: ha';r h:.-'n 'r- t ItA.-V.,,;(r\'l lf^.r.'J.li: present writ petition is similar to the one ii.C7l(r2(, ir \\ '..1 l?'198 of 2026 it has been ordered for the ()i-..r.,;,:riloils made in para No.g of the order dated ir only to respondent No.2 before whorn the iTlaticl t. h,: -errrli,:. -rilck to respondent No.l. "vhereas, it ought to L.j! /'il:, l\ )'a, dated 21,.05.2026 - ' :'... . .'C26, dated 29.05.2026

3 petitioner has to sr-rbmit Income Tax retut'ns. not belore respondent No.1 as directed. At this juncture, learned Sianciing Counsel for the Income Tax Deparl-ment,, submits that lel tlr: retrtaird be tuade it-, respondent No.l itself for considering the ap0liciitiorr tbr condonntion of delay, instead of directly remitting it t{, r'L':rpoltdcnt No.2. -[lris contention of leamed Standing Counsel rnii]. nol be necessarlr at this juncture for the rease.n that we have alreacl' :.l,rl essei our trpiniiln rrn merits, insofar as the explanation for dela''' tlat has occulled on the part of the petitioner in not filing revised ir,'^orri,: fax retums and it was in this context the order of respondent \o. i was set aside in the said judgment anci therefore, as a natural coiollr-,rr'" the nlatter is rntact be remitted back to respondent No.2 insteiLi: i,! ;.:ip{-,nocnt No. I anci respondent No.2 in tum shall permit the p:eiiriorrer to submil l-iis revised Income ll-ax returns accordingly.

4.

With the aforesaid observations an..l ilrc.tirr,ni, the irnpr-rgn,-.d order in the instant case dated 24.06.2026 li,: rlre ,tsserssnrcnr leal's 2020-2021 and202l-2022 passed by respon.-lent No.i is ser" aside and- the matter stands remitted back to responrient ii.r.l pennitting the petitioner to submit revised Income Tax rc'ir-rrr 1

4 r-| ) () ( 1i't ,I,rit Petition standq alli:rred There shall be r ',:,iications pending, ilan'r. shailstand closed //'/ SD'- MOHD.ISMAIL OEPUTY REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER To, 1 l:"?1T'ilr""#.Ti*'i""J;i,]"i"fl "-'i,'x";,oiH"%l??i;"fl ::"1'?H[ Hyderabad - 500 004' ii"l"."."raxorricerwaf"Jl!.1;[,rfl"r',i,1ii;3T?"oS'A'i?1.1I,,?i""[ili Opposite L.B. Stadium' Basr fi::::r:,fl:iil^,o|., o, Finance' Department of Revenue' centrar Board of o'i=""iir-"t 'n,"'tn er6"r New Delhi' Union of lndia The Union of lndia 'ep'"s"nt"O by.its. Secretary'^Ministry of Finance' Department of Revenue tu""n-tJ-Sot'O of Direct Taxes)' North Block' New Delhi - 1'10 001' 6"" "" to SRI M NAGA DEEPAK' Advocate [OPUCI 3"r_zz ir.xm*.Ltiffi :'_' * _:. "' standi ns co u nse' one cc to SRl. UDAY *u-'oti '"*ooWAT' Junior Standing Counsel for CBIC, Two CD Copies 2 3 4 ( b 7 6 PSR \ cr', r ', i'ir ,i, '

HIGH COURT DATED: 1210812026 ORDER WP.No.24973 of 2026 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS. 'J ( i s a 6 tJ i} ? G ( T * q5oo 2 \_ U A 0 , .f J * l.n N E LL @

More judgments on Section 119(2)(b)

All 980 judgments and leading authorities on Section 119(2)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →