- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9058 WP No. 107118 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO.107118 OF 2024 (T-IT) BETWEEN: SMT. ANITHA B.H. WIFE OF LATE BHIMANNA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, PLOT NO.06, LAHARI, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS, SADHUNAVAR ESTATE, DASANAKOPPA, DHARWAD-580 005. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR S.V., & SRI. SHASHANK S. HEGDE, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HUBLI, C.R. BUILDING, NAVANAGAR, HUBLI-580 025. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1), HUBLI, NO.23, 1ST FLOOR, ASWAMEDHA PLOT, NAVANAGAR, HUBLI-580 025. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. THIRUMALESH & SMT. ROOPA, ADVOCATES) VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9058 WP No. 107118 of 2024 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO, a) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 16.05.2023 PASSED UNDER SECTION 119(2)(b) OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 BEARING DIN AND ORDER NO.ITBA/COM/F/17/2023-24/ 1052856497(1) HEREIN MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A. b) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME DATED 11.10.2017 FOR AY 2014-15 HEREIN MARKED AS ANNEXURE-E AND GRANT THE REFUND ALONG WITH INTEREST IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. c) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO PROCESS THE RETURN OF INCOME DATED 11.10.2017 HEREIN MARKED AS ANNEXURE-E AND GRANT THE REFUND ALONG WITH INTEREST IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9058 WP No. 107118 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The present petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the impugned order dated 16.05.2023 at Annexure-A and consequently, issue a mandamus to the respondents directing them to condone the delay in filing the income tax returns and to process the return. 3. The petitioner is an individual. Her husband, Sri.Bhimanna passed away on 17.12.2001 in a road traffic accident. Unfortunately, due to the accident, the petitioner suffered severe mental and financial hardship. The husband of the petitioner was 41 years old and was a Professor at a University. In view of the accident, the petitioner had filed a claim petition seeking compensation in MVC No.25/2002 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) against the KSRTC and the concerned - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9058 WP No. 107118 of 2024 owner and driver of the offending vehicle. The said claim petition was allowed by the Tribunal, and the KSRTC was directed to pay compensation of ₹30,36,600/- along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the petition. 4. This matter was taken up in appeal before the High Court by both the claimant and the respondents in the claim petition. In the MFA proceedings, compensation was enhanced by ₹1,47,212/- along with interest at 6% p.a. The petitioner thereafter received her share of compensation from the KSRTC for the financial year 2013- 14 on 30.09.2013, amounting to ₹15,53,365/-, including deduction of tax at source of ₹3,10,673/- by the KSRTC. The tax deducted at source (TDS) was remitted to the Revenue by the KSRTC on 23.02.2016. 5. This being the state of affairs, the last date for filing the return of income tax for the assessment year 2014-15 was 31.03.2016. On account of the TDS being remitted by KSRTC, the petitioner could not file the return - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9058 WP No. 107118 of 2024 of income tax for that year within the due date. However, she proceeded to file the return on 11.10.2017 and claimed refund of TDS. 6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that she was wrongly advised that, since the TDS was remitted, the compensation had to be necessarily offered as taxable income. The petitioner had submitted the return of income with a delay of 924 days, i.e., from 01.04.2015 to 11.10.2017, and hence the return was not processed and no refund was issued. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’, for short) on 28.05.2020 before respondent No.1. On receipt of the letter, respondent No.2 called for explanation, information, and details in respect of the application filed before respondent No.1. Subsequently, the petitioner filed reminder letters with respondent No.1, and since there was no response and no order was passed with regard to condonation of delay on the application filed under Section - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9058 WP No. 107118 of 2024 119(2)(b) of the Act, the petitioner is before this Court, aggrieved by the order passed by the respondents. 7. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel Sri.Ravishankar, that the petitioner is a lady working as a clerk in the University on compassionate grounds, in view of the death of her husband in harness. Prior to that, she was unemployed and she is now earning a monthly income of approximately ₹20,000/- and an annual income of ₹2,40,000/-. She is not aware of the intricacies of income tax procedures, rules, regulations, and laws. However, she became aware of the need to file income tax returns only when the impugned order was passed. She thereafter filed an application seeking condonation of the delay under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act, requesting the respondent authorities to consider her application on sympathetic grounds, as well as based on the provisions of Section 119(2)(b) of the Act and pass suitable orders with regard to return of income tax. The respondents having considered the application, not being - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9058 WP No. 107118 of 2024 satisfied with the explanation so made, rejected the application on the ground that the delay could not be condoned, relying on several judgments. 8. Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is extracted hereunder for easy understanding: Section 119(2)(b) – Income Tax Act, 1961 The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) may, if it considers it desirable or expedient so to do for the purpose of proper and efficient management of the work of assessment and collection of revenue, by general or special order, authorize any income-tax authority to admit an application or claim for any exemption, deduction, refund or any other relief under this Act after the expiry of the period specified by or under this Act for making such application or claim, and to deal with the same on merits in accordance with law, if it is satisfied that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause from making the application or claim within the specified period. 9. The provision clearly contemplates that, if the Board considers it desirable or expedient to avoid genuine - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9058 WP No. 107118 of 2024 hardship, it can admit an application or claim for exemption, deduction, refund, or any other relief under the Act, even after the expiry of the prescribed time limit. Therefore the provision is very clear that there is scope for admission of an application for any exemptions which causes any genuine hardship to the party and which is a discretionary relief, which ought to be considered based on the specific facts and circumstances of each case on hand. 10. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has received the amount as compensation for the death of her husband in a road traffic accident and it is also to be seen that the income of the petitioner is hardly ₹20,000/- per month, which would be ₹2,40,000/- per annum. Therefore, Respondent No.1 ought to have considered these relevant facts and taken a lenient and sympathetic view with regard to consideration of the application for condonation of delay, rather than rejecting it outright. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9058 WP No. 107118 of 2024 11. No doubt, respondent No.1 has gone on the provisions of the Act and relevant rules, with regard to the terminology in the Act on literal sense and relied on several judgments to hold that the petitioner, or a person similarly placed, cannot take advantage of his or her own wrong. However, the fact remains that each case must be dealt with on its own facts and circumstances. Under the circumstances, considering the fact that the petitioner has received the compensation amount due to the untimely death of her husband in a road traffic accident, this Court is inclined to show indulgence in the matter. 12. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.Thirumalesh, representing the respondent authorities, vehemently sustains the impugned order and contends that there is no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the respondents. He further submits that, the order is in consonance with the provisions of Section 119(2)(b) of the Act, and the same has been passed after considering several judgments and the literal meaning of the term - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9058 WP No. 107118 of 2024 "genuine hardship", as well as the term "genuine" itself and the petitioner cannot take advantage of her own wrong, having committed the mistake herself. Therefore, he supports the impugned order, contending that there is a huge delay of 924 days, and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 13. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents, it is noted that the provision of law is clear, where discretion is conferred upon the respondent authority to admit an application for claiming any exemption or direction by considering the “genuine hardship” faced by the parties. 14. Though the term "genuine hardship" has been discussed elaborately and defined in the impugned order, the same cannot be interpreted in a purely literal sense. It has to be looked into in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, particularly taking into account that the petitioner has received the said amount - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9058 WP No. 107118 of 2024 as compensation for the death of her husband in a road traffic accident, and also considering her limited income. 15. Therefore, this is a fit case where the respondents ought to have exercised discretion in treating this matter as one involving genuine hardship to the petitioner. Under the circumstances, I pass the following: ORDER i. The impugned order dated 16.05.2023 passed by Respondent No. 1 is hereby quashed. ii. The delay of 924 days in filing the income tax return is hereby condoned. Respondent No.1 is directed to consider the petitioner's application and process the income tax return, taking a lenient and sympathetic view. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9058 WP No. 107118 of 2024 iii. Respondent No.2 shall process the income tax returns of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The said exercise shall be completed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE gab CT:MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5