SMT. RAJESHWAR ASHOK TALIKOTI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP/105538/2024HC KarnatakaKAHC02013977202406 December 2024Bench: C.M. POONACHA4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, did not decide the merits of the case. By an order dated December 6, 2024, the Court directed the petitioner to comply with office objections within four weeks, failing which the writ petition would automatically stand dismissed. Subsequently, an endorsement dated January 10, 2025, recorded that the office objections were not complied with by the petitioner's advocate. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed without further orders from the Court, as per the previous order. Therefore, no decision was rendered on the issues of natural justice, condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b), or the refund claim. The operative direction was the dismissal of the writ petition due to non-compliance with procedural requirements.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Smt. Rajeshwar Ashok Talikoti, is the legal heir of the deceased Ashok B. Talikoti. She filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, challenging an order dated March 22, 2022, passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to reconsider her application for condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for not filing a revised return of income in due course. The petitioner claimed a refund of Rs. 3,82,370/-. The petition also sought quashing of the rejection order, directions for reconsideration of the application, payment of interest, compensation, and legal expenses. The Court, by an order dated December 6, 2024, directed compliance with office objections within four weeks, failing which the petition would stand dismissed. Subsequently, an endorsement dated January 10, 2025, noted that the office objections were not complied with, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax erred in rejecting the petitioner's claim without providing an opportunity of being heard, thereby violating the principles of natural justice? 2. Whether the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax erred in failing to exercise discretionary powers under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for condoning the delay in filing the revised return, despite genuine reasons for the delay, leading to the forfeiture of a refund of Rs. 3,82,370/-? Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the order of rejection was passed without affording her an opportunity of being heard, which is a violation of the principles of natural justice. She further contended that the Principal Commissioner failed to exercise his discretionary powers under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to condone the delay in filing the revised return, even though the reasons for the delay were genuine and the family was facing financial hardship due to her ill health. The petitioner sought quashing of the order and a direction to reconsider her application for condonation and issue the refund. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the respondent (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 119(2)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M.POONACHA

WRIT PETITION No. 105538 OF 2024

BETWEEN

1 . SMT. RAJESHWAR ASHOK TALIKOTI AGE 56 YEARS WIFE AND L/H OF LATE SHRI ASHOK B TALIKOTI

... PETITIONER

(BY SRI: SAULAM JOSEPH, ADVOCATE.)

AND

1 . PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HUBLI, NAVANAGAR HUBLI 580020

. . RESPONDENT

THIS WP IS FILED PRAYING TO, WHEREFORE, FOR THE REASONS STATED ABOVE, THE PETITIONER MOST HUMBLY PRAYS THAT THIS HON BLE COURT MAY KINDLY BE PLEASED TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS I) AS THE HON BLE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS NOT GIVEN ANY OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE PLAINTIFF BEFORE PASSING ORDER OF REJECTION DT. 22-03-2022 WHICH AMOUNTS TO VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE.

2 II) ALSO, WHEN THERE ARE EVERY OPPORTUNITY OF CONDONING THE DELAY U/S 119(2)(B) OF IT ACT, 1961 WHICH ARE GENUINE IN NATURE, THE HON BLE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HUBLI HAS FAILED TO EXERCISE HIS DISCRETIONARY POWERS BY PASSING THE ORDER OF REJECTION DUE TO WHICH THE PLAINTIFF HAS TO FORGO REFUND OF RS. 3,82,370/- FOR NO FAULT OF THE PLAINTIFF. III. THE HON BLE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HUBLI HAS ERRED IN PASSING THE ORDER BY REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE PLAINTIFF WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. HENCE IT IS PRAYED TO KINDLY QUASH THE ORDERS OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HUBLI BY ISSUING. IV) PRAY TO ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO RECONSIDER THE APPLICATION U/S 119(2)(B) OF CONDONATION OF DELAY IN NOT FILING THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME IN DUE COURSE OF TIME AND ISSUE REFUND OF A SUM OF RS 3,82,370/- SMT RAJESHWARI A TALIKOTI WHO IS L/H OF THE DECEASED LATE SRI. ASHOK B TALIKOTI AS THE ENTIRE FAMILY ARE IN FINANCIAL HARDSHIP DUE TO HER ILL HEALTH. V) PRAY TO PAY INTEREST AT THE PREVAILING RATES W.E.F THE DUE DATE OF ISSUE OF REFUND TO THE PLAINTIFF. VI) PRAY TO PAY COMPENSATION OF S. 1,00,000/- FOR HAVING SUFFERED MENTALLY BY THE PETITIONER AND ALL HIS FAMILY MEMBERS FOR REJECTING THE CLAIM AND NOT ISSUING REFUND CAUSING FINANCIAL HARDSHIP AND NOT BEING ABLE TO CONCENTRATE ON ANY OTHER DOMESTIC

3 AFFAIRS AS THE FAMILY MEMBERS WERE FORCED TO TAKE HAND LOANS FROM FRIENDS AND RELATIVES AT TIMES OF CRUCIAL FINANCIAL NEED. VII) PRAY TO PAY LEGAL EXPENSES OF RS. 50,000/- INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH FILING THIS WRIT PETITION BEFORE THE HON BLE COURT. VIII) PRAY TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE PART OF THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE HON BLE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HUBLI DT. 22-03-2022 AS PER ANNEXRE-F. IX) PRAY TO ISSUE SUCH SUITABLE ORDERS OR REDIRECTIONS AS THIS HON BLE COURT DEEMS FIT AND PROPER IN THE NATURE AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. This petition coming on for orders this day, the court, made the following; O R D E R Office objections to be complied with within four weeks, failing which the above writ petition shall automatically stand dismissed without further orders from the Court.

SD/- JUDGE.

4 Note: As per the endorsement made in the order sheet dated 10.01.2025 the Advocates for the Petitioner has not complied with the office objections. Hence, this WP No. 105538/2024 stand dismissed without further orders from the Court as per the Court Order dated: 06.12.2024.

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

SD/-

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR R- By:-sgs C- By:-sgs T By :-psl

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 →