TANGEVVA W/O SUBHASH PATIL, YADAHALLI vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD Dated this the 07th day of December, 2012 Before THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.N.NAGAMOHAN THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.N.NAGAMOHAN THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.N.NAGAMOHAN THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.N.NAGAMOHAN DAS DAS DAS DAS WP NO 65877-65881 OF 2012(T-IT) BETWEEN 1. SMT.TANGEVVA W/O SUBHASH PATIL YADAHALLI AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/AT: YADHALLI VILLAGE, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT ... PETITIONER (By Sri : H R KAMBIYAVAR ASSOCIATES) AND 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BELGAUM. 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -I, BAGALKOT ... RESPONDENTS (By Sri : JEEVAN J NEERALAGI, ADV. )

: 2 : THESE WP FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED:25/02/2011 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 (ANNEXURE-E). These petitions coming on for preliminary hearing ‘B’ group this day, the court made the following: ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER Petitioners are the land losers in the acquisition proceedings for upper krishna project way back in the year 2002. Since the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate the petitioner approached the reference court. The reference court enhanced the compensation and awarded interest. On the interest payable to the petitioner tax was deducted at source. Subsequently, petitioner filed returns for refund of the tax deducted at source. Since there was delay, an application to condone the delay was also filed. Under the impugned order dated 25.2.2011 the respondent rejected the returns on the ground that there is delay and also on merits. Therefore the petitioner is before this court.

: 3 : 2. In identical circumstances, learned single Judge of this court in A.Balakrishnan vs. General Manager, Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd and another [2007] 290 ITR 227 quashed the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax. Further the order passed by the learned single Judge came to be affirmed by a Division Bench and directed to process the returns and pass appropriate orders. Further the judgment of the Division Bench was affirmed by the Supreme Court. In the circumstances, the following: ORDER I) Writ petitions are hereby allowed. II) The impugned order dated 25/02/2011 passed by the respondent – Commissioner of Income Tax is hereby set-aside. III) The matter is remanded to the second respondent directing to process the returns filed by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and in any

: 4 : event not later than three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE Dkb