9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 618X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch other Writ, Order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, immediately annulling / quashing Order in F. No. Cond. 119(2)(b)/VFT/CCIT/BNG- 1/2023-24 dated 31.07.2023 enclosed as Annexure C and holding the same to be untenable in law, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case; ii. Issue a writ of mandamus, or such other Writ, Order or direction, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, directing Respondents to immediately decide on their request for rectification of Order in F.No. Cond. 119(2)(b)/VFT/CCIT/BNG-1/2023-24 dated 31.07.2023 enclosed as Annexure C; iii. To quash Order in F. No. Cond. 119(2)(b)/VFT/CCIT/BNG-1/2023-24 dated 31.07.2023 enclosed as Annexure C and decide their request in accordan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able to be dismissed. 7. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, perusal of the impugned Order will indicate that respondent No. 2 has committed an error in proceeding on the erroneous premise that compensation payable in favour of petitioner was on account of Metro Rail Project which was not covered by the provisions of Section 96 of RFCTLARR Act. 8. In this context, respondent No. 2 failed to consider and appreciate that the compensation was paid in favour of petitioner pursuant to the agreement dated 06.03.2019 entered into between the petitioner and the Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB, under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act, in respect of which, petitioner would not be liable to pay income tax nor be liabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tal gains for receiving compensation from the concerned authority-Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board. It is contended that the petitioner was unaware of the exemption for deduction of tax deducted at source as well as payment of tax in respect of the land acquisition compensation received by her and when she came to know about the same, she submitted an application under Section 119[2][b] of the IT Act seeking condonation of delay and sought for refund accordingly. The said application was considered by the respondent who proceeded to reject the same both on the ground of delay as well as on merits by passing the impugned order dated 08.03.2023 which is assailed in the present petition. 4. Insofar as the entitlement of the peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eserves to be quashed on this ground also. In the result, the following: ORDER [a] The petition is hereby allowed. [b] The impugned order dated 08.03.2023 [Annexure-D] of the respondent No. 1 is set aside. [c] The respondent No. 1 is directed to refund the entire tax collected by the respondents back to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order." 9. Perusal of the impugned Order will also indicate that respondent No. 2 committed error in refusing to condone the delay without appreciating that petitioner had made out valid and sufficient grounds to condone the delay and consequently, impugned Order refusing to condone the delay also d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
