- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18934 WP No. 4157 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4157 OF 2025 (T-IT) BETWEEN: BABULAL LALURAMJI AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT 320/1, TRANSPORT STEEL, NEAR MAZID A NARAYANPURA DOORVANINAGAR BANGALORE KARNATAKA- 560015 PAN NO.AESPL5141B …PETITIONER (BY SRI SHEETAL BORKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CCIT CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA INDIA -560001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI Y.V.RAVIRAJ, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER UNDER SECTION 119(2)(b) VIDE, DIN NO.ITBA/COM/F/17/2023-24/1056850531 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, DATED 06/10/2023, ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-C AND ETC., Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18934 WP No. 4157 of 2025 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, who has received compensation from M/s. Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board [KIADB] consequent to acquisition of his land for the benefit of the Metro Rail Project, is aggrieved by the respondent's order dated 06.10.2023 under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short, 'the IT Act']. M/s. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited [BMRCL] had affected TDS mentioning incorrect PAN details but has later corrected the details reflecting the same in the petitioner's Form 26AS. The respondent, despite observing the above, has opined that the delay should not be condoned because the petitioner will not be entitled to claim exemption. Crucially, it cannot be disputed that by the time M/s. BMRCL corrected the PAN details reflecting the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18934 WP No. 4157 of 2025 TDS made in the petitioner's Form 26AS, the time limit to file the revised return had lapsed. The authority to consider the import of TDS and the exemption would be the jurisdictional Assessing Officer subject to other remedies that would be available to the petitioner, but this cannot be a reason to reject the application filed for seeking condonation of delay. In these circumstances, this Court opines that the petitioner has made out a case for interference with the impugned order and to condone the delay with liberty to file revised ITR within four [4] weeks from today. The petition is allowed accordingly leaving open all questions otherwise to be decided under law. SD/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE RB