R RAMESHA vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP/24169/2026HC KarnatakaKAHC01053115202619 August 2026Author: B M SHYAM PRASAD8 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a certified copy of the order with the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-3 (the second respondent). The Court directed the second respondent to examine the petitioner's application under Section 119(2)(b) of the IT Act for condonation of delay in filing the revised returns for assessment year 2019-20. The second respondent was further instructed to decide on the application and communicate the decision to the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. The Court noted that the petitioner asserts ownership based on a decree and that the compensation, which is exempt under Section 96 of the Act of 2013, was received only in 2025 after the civil dispute was resolved. The Court opined that interference was necessary as a separate application for condonation of delay had not been filed with the second respondent.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, R Ramesha, as legal heir, claims ownership over land acquired by KIADB. Compensation for this acquisition was delayed due to a dispute over title, which was eventually resolved in the petitioner's favour by a decree. The compensation was credited to the petitioner's account in 2025. The petitioner filed revised returns for assessment year 2019-20 in 2025, after receiving the compensation. The petitioner sought directions to condone the delay in filing the revised returns and to refund the Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) made by KIADB, asserting that the compensation is exempt from tax under Section 96 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The Assessing Officer had forwarded the petitioner's application for condonation of delay to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in filing the revised return of income for the assessment year 2019-20 should be condoned, and if so, whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of the entire tax collected, including applicable interest, in light of Section 96 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that the compensation received for land acquisition is exempt from tax under Section 96 of the Act of 2013. They rely on a previous order of this Court in W.P.No.26990/2025, where similar relief was granted, directing authorities to refund the entire tax collected. The delay in filing the revised return occurred because the compensation was received only after the resolution of a civil dispute and was credited to their account in 2025. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its counsel, agreed to the petition being disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a certified copy of the order with the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax for consideration of their application.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 96,Section 119(2)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1.

CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CCIT) BENGALURU-1, AN AUTHORITY UNDER SECTION 116 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. 2. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-3, AN AUTHORITY U/S 116 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, BMTC BUILDING, 5TH BLOCK, IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 24169 OF 2026 (T-IT) BETWEEN: R RAMESHA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS S/O ESHWAR RAO @ ESHWARAPPA NO.169/2, 4TH MAIN ROAD, 7TH CROSS, CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE-560018 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. AJAY J NANDALIKE., ADVOCATE A/W SRI. PURUSHOTHAM R., ADVOCATE) AND: Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560095.

3.

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2)(5) BENGALURU, THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER INCOME TAX, ACT, 1961 BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560095. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.M. THIRUMALESH., ADVOCATE A/W SRI. NIRMAL MATHEW., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 CONSTITUTION INDIA PRAYING DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONDONE THE DELAY CAUSED IN FILING THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE YEAR 2019-20, VIDE ANNEXURE-G; II) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR DIRECTION IN NATURE WRIT MANDAMUS DIRECTING RESPONDENTS REFUND THE ENTIRE TAX COLLECTED BY THE RESPONDENTS BACK PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-F, ALONG WITH APPLICABLE INTEREST FROM THE DATE OF DEPOSIT TILL ACTUAL PAYMENT TO THE PETITIONER, IN TERMS OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

ORAL ORDER The petitioner, as the legal heirs of Mr. K. Krishnam Raju and Mrs. Lakshmamma, assert title over an extent of 3 acres 20 guntas in Sy.No.87/3 and Sy.No.87/4 of Kothanur Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk [the subject lands]. M/s. Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board [KIADB] has acquired the subject lands, and the surrounding lands under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966. The payment of compensation for acquisition is delayed with dispute over the petitioner's claim to the subject lands, but this dispute is ultimately resolved [as asserted by the petitioner] with a decree in their favour. The petitioner is categorical that M/s. KIADB has deposited the compensation payable after this decree. 2. The petitioner who had filed Returns for the assessment year 2019-20, have filed their

revised Returns in the year 2025 [after the compensation is credited to their account]. The petitioner seeks directions to the respondents [including the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - the second respondent] to condone the delay in filing the revised returns and refund the TDS effected by M/s. KIADB asserting that in view of Section 96 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 [for short, ‘the Act of 2013’], the compensation paid towards acquisition of land would be exempt from tax.

3.

Mr. Ajay J Nandalike, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that when the petitioner has filed their revised returns, the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer has caused the Communication dated 27.01.2026 addressed to Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-03 referring to the petitioner’s application dated

12.01.2026 and informing the petitioner that the application and the enclosures are forwarded to the office of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-03. The learned counsel submits that in similar circumstances, this Court by Order dated 31.10.2025 writ petition W.P.No.26990/2025, has interfered with the refusal to condone delay directing the Authorities to refund the entire tax collected and that the petitioner would be entitled for similar relief in the present circumstances as well.

4.

Mr. M. Thirumalesh, a learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents who is assisted by Mr. Nirmal Mathew, the learned standing counsel for the respondents who accept notice for the respondents, is heard on the terms for disposal of the petition. The learned Senior Standing Counsel submits that this Court could examine

disposing of the petition with liberty to the petitioner to file a certified copy of this Order with the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru- 03 [the second respondent] for consideration of his application.

5.

This Court, on a careful consideration of the circumstances and the submissions, and because it is brought out to this Court's satisfaction that a separate application for condonation of delay is not filed with the second respondent, must opine that there must be interference with liberty to the petitioner to file a certified copy of this Order with the second respondent. Further, this Court is of the opinion that the second respondent, upon receipt of the certified copy, must verify the petitioner’s application for condonation of delay by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer and decide on the petitioner’s request for condonation in the light of factors such as that:

 he asserts ownership to the subject land based on a decree, and  he has been admitted to compensation which is exempt under Section 96 of the Act of 2013 only in the year 2025 after the resolution of the civil dispute. ORDER [A] The petition stands disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a certified copy of this Order with the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru -3 [the second respondent], who shall examine the records to verify petitioner’s application under Section 119(2)(b) of the IT Act for condonation of delay in filing the revised Returns for the assessment year 2019- 2020.

[B] The second respondent shall decide on the application/s and communicate the decision to the petitioner within three [3] months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE AN/-

More judgments on Section 96

All 68 judgments and leading authorities on Section 96 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →