- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36865-DB WA No. 658 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT APPEAL NO. 658 OF 2024 (T-IT) BETWEEN: 1. THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. 2. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX C.R. BUILDING, INFANTRY ROAD, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL) AND: 1. VELLARA FRANCIS THOMAS AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, NO.10, WOOD STREET, BANGALORE - 560 025 INDIVIDUAL. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ANIRUDHA R. NAYAK, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27/02/2024 IN WP NO.1705/2024 PASSED BY THE HONBLE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND GRANT SUCH OTHER ORDER. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36865-DB WA No. 658 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND) Heard Sri. E.I.Sanmathi, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellants and Sri. Anirudha R. Nayak, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The Revenue is in appeal under Section 4 of the High Court Act, 1961, assailing the order in Writ Petition No.1705/2024 dated 27.02.2024 wherein, the second appellant is directed to refund the excess TDS collected by the respondents to the petitioner and delay in claiming the refund is condoned under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The respondent, an individual, filed income tax return for the assessment year 2019-20. The respondent received compensation on the acquisition of land by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘KIADB’). The return of income claiming refund of excess TDS was filed, however, verification of the return of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36865-DB WA No. 658 of 2024 income was delayed. Hence, the respondent filed application for condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act. The application for condonation of delay came to be rejected holding that compensation received is not exempt under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ('2013 Act' for short). The said order came to be challenged in the writ petition. Learned Single Judge by following the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited vs. M/s. Balaji Corporate Services and Others, in Writ Appeal No.890/2022, disposed of on 27.09.2023, allowed the writ petition and directed the Revenue to refund the excess TDS. 4. Sri E.I. Sanmathi, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant-Revenue, submits that the order relied upon by the learned Single Judge has not attained finality and is pending in appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 5. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and on perusal of the appeal papers, we note that the respondent was in receipt of compensation - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36865-DB WA No. 658 of 2024 from KIADB for acquisition of land against which TDS was deducted. The assessee filed return of income claiming refund of excess TDS. However, the return of income was not verified within the due date. The respondent filed application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act to condone the delay. The application came to be rejected on merits holding that the compensation received is not under the 2013 Act, hence, Section 96 of 2013 Act is not applicable. Learned Single Judge, following the judgment of the Division Bench in Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited (supra) held that the compensation is not taxable and excess TDS is to be refunded, after condoning the delay in verifying the return of the income. 6. A careful perusal of the order impugned, we are of the view that the issue raised in the appeal is covered against the appellant in Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited (supra). 7. Accordingly, the present appeal is devoid of merit and dismissed. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36865-DB WA No. 658 of 2024 In view of dismissal of the appeal, the interlocutory application would not survive and they stand accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29