TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 1250X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the land acquisition compensation received by her and when she came to know about the same, she submitted an application u/s 119[2][b] seeking condonation of delay and sought for refund accordingly. HELD THAT:- The said issue/question is truly and squarely covered by the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED v. M/s. SRI BALAJI CORPORATE SERVICES AND OTHERS [ 2023 (9) TMI 1444 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] wherein it is held that the land acquisition compensation is exempted from payment of income tax. Applying the law laid down the respondents committed error in rejecting the request of the petitioner for refund of the tax collected by them in relation to the subject land acquisition comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f writ, directing the concerned respondent No. 1 authority to consider the application under Section 119[2][b] of the Act dated 22.02.2022 vide Annexure-C, by condoning the delay thereon in filing the same, consider the said application filed by the petitioner and thereafter pass an order in respect to the exemption claimed by the petitioner, under the Income Tax Act, 1961 and allow the same. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 3. The material on record discloses that the petitioner who is the individual assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short, the IT Act ] filed her income tax returns for the assessment year 2018-19 and in the said returns, she voluntarily disclosed tax in respect of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uest of the petitioner for refund of the tax collected by them in relation to the subject land acquisition compensation. 5. Insofar as the reasons assigned by the respondents to reject the request of the petitioner for condonation of delay is concerned, a perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the respondents had adopted hyper technical approach and failed to consider and appreciate the reasons assigned by the petitioner in her application dated 22.02.2022 which clearly constituted valid and sufficient cause for not being able to submit the refund application within the prescribed period. Under these circumstances, the impugned order rejecting the request for condonation of delay is also contrary to the material on record and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
