Taxpayer wins challenge after authorities rejected delayed return filing for claiming legitimate TDS refund on tax-exempt compensation under Section 119(2)(b)

Gujarat HC allowed petition challenging rejection of condonation application for delayed income tax return filing. Court held that authorities failed to consider petitioner's entitlement to TDS refund on tax-exempt compensation received from acquiring body. Since compensation was exempt from tax, petitioner required revised return filing to claim legitimate refund. Authorities' reasoning was inadequate as they ignored petitioner's genuine need to file revised return for claiming eligible refund. Court quashed impugned order under Section 119(2)(b) of Income Tax Act, emphasizing provision's objective to prevent unnecessary hardship to assessees claiming legitimate refunds.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Court in this matter include:

(a) Whether the delay in filing the Income Tax Return (ITR) for the Assessment Year 2017-18, caused due to the Petitioner not being informed timely about the Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) on compensation received for compulsory acquisition of land, can be condoned under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

(b) Whether the compensation received by the Petitioner on compulsory acquisition of agricultural land is exempt from income tax under the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, specifically Section 54D and Section 10(26AAB).

(c) Whether the Department was justified in deducting TDS on the compensation amount despite the exemption provisions.

(d) Whether the Petitioner is entitled to a refund of the TDS deducted, including statutory interest under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act.

(e) Whether the Respondent was correct in rejecting the application for condonation of delay on the ground that the Petitioner failed to establish "genuine hardship" in filing the return within the prescribed time.

(f) The applicability and interpretation of Circular No. 9 of 2015 dated 09.06.2015 in relation to condonation of delay and payment of interest on refunds.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

(a) Condonation of Delay under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act

The legal framework governing condonation of delay is Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, which empowers the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) or any authorized income-tax authority to admit an application or claim for exemption, deduction, refund, or other relief after the expiry of the prescribed period, if it considers it desirable to avoid genuine hardship.

The Court examined the facts that the Petitioner was not informed about the TDS deduction until December 2018, well after the due date for filing the return (extended to 05.08.2017). This delay in communication prevented timely filing of the return and claiming the refund.

The Respondent rejected the condonation application on the ground that no documentary evidence of genuine hardship was produced. However, the Court noted that the Assessing Officer and higher authorities failed to consider the factual position that the Petitioner was unaware of the TDS deduction due to lack of timely communication, which constituted sufficient cause for delay.

The Court relied heavily on the precedent set in a recent decision of the same High Court, where similar facts were considered and condonation of delay was granted to enable refund claims arising from TDS wrongly deducted on compensation for compulsory acquisition of land. The Court emphasized that the discretion under Section 119(2)(b) should be exercised liberally to avoid unnecessary hardship to the taxpayer.

(b) Exemption of Compensation under Section 54D and Section 10(26AAB)

The Petitioner contended that the compensation received for compulsory acquisition of agricultural land was exempt from income tax under Section 54D and Section 10(26AAB) of the Income Tax Act. The Respondent's contention that tax was payable on the interest component of the compensation was rejected by the Court, holding that the entire compensation amount was exempt.

The Court referred to authoritative judgments, including the Apex Court's decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad v. Ghanshyam (HUF), which clarified the nature of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act and its exemption status.

It was held that since the compensation was exempt, the TDS deducted by the Department was improper and liable to be refunded.

(c) Wrongful Deduction of TDS and Entitlement to Refund

The Department had deducted TDS amounting to Rs. 1,01,16,037/- from the compensation paid to the Petitioner. The Petitioner's claim for refund of this amount was contingent on filing the return of income, which was delayed due to lack of timely knowledge of the deduction.

The Court observed that the Department's initial deduction of TDS was wrongful given the exemption provisions. The Petitioner was therefore entitled to refund of the deducted amount.

(d) Entitlement to Interest on Refund under Section 244A

The Court extensively analyzed the entitlement to interest on the refund amount under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act. It noted that the Petitioner was not at fault for the delay in filing the return since the deductor did not issue the mandatory Form 16A or inform the Petitioner timely.

The Court relied on the Apex Court's ruling in Tata Chemicals Limited, which held that when the Government collects tax illegally or without right, it is obliged to refund the amount with interest as compensation for use and retention of the money.

The Court also distinguished the Department's reliance on Circular No. 9 of 2015, clarifying that it applies to supplementary claims post-assessment and does not bar interest on refunds where the delay is not attributable to the assessee.

Thus, the Petitioner was held entitled to interest on the refund from the date of deposit of TDS till the date of refund payment.

(e) Treatment of Genuine Hardship and Documentary Evidence

The Respondent's rejection of the condonation application was premised on the absence of documentary evidence of genuine hardship. The Court found this reasoning flawed because the Petitioner's inability to file the return within time was due to non-communication of TDS deduction, which itself constituted sufficient cause.

The Court emphasized that the discretion under Section 119(2)(b) is to be exercised to avoid hardship and not to impose technical barriers where the taxpayer is not at fault.

(f) Application of Relevant Precedents and Circulars

The Court extensively relied on the decision in Kalpesh Jayantilal Lakdawala and Ramjibhai Lavabhai Undhad, where condonation of delay was granted in analogous circumstances involving TDS on compensation for land acquisition.

The Court also referred to the Apex Court's directions in Hari Singh and others, which clarified the procedure for refund of TDS deducted on agricultural land compensation.

The Court rejected the Department's reliance on Circular No. 9 of 2015 for denying interest, explaining that the circular's provisions do not apply to the facts of this case where the refund claim was delayed due to reasons not attributable to the Petitioner.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Court made the following crucial legal determinations:

"The Respondents-authorities were required to consider the facts of the case more particularly when the Petitioner admittedly has not received the compensation till the due date of filing of return and when the Petitioner received such compensation, the delay in filing the revised return is required to be condoned so that the Petitioner gets the refund of the TDS deposited by the acquiring body in the Government, as such compensation received by the Petitioner is not taxable under the provisions of the Act."

"Section 119 (2) (b) reads as under: (b) the Board may, if it considers it desirable or expedient so to do for avoiding genuine hardship in any case or class of cases, by general or special order, authorise 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 deal with the same on merits in accordance with law."

"The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Tata Chemicals Limited... has held that money received and retained without right carries with it right to interest and whenever money has been received by a party which ex ae quo et bono ought to be refunded, the right to interest follows as a matter of course."

"The Petitioner was not at fault for not filing the return of income to claim the refund as the deductor neither informed the Petitioner about the deduction of tax at source nor issued Form-16A which is mandatory."

"The impugned order dated 17.12.2024 passed by the Respondent under Section 119 (2) (b) of the Act is hereby quashed and set aside. The Respondent is directed to pass a fresh order condoning the delay in filing the Petitioner's return of income for the Assessment Year 2017-18, so as to process the same in accordance with law."

The Court established the principle that where a taxpayer is prevented from timely filing a return due to non-communication of TDS deduction by the deductor, the delay in filing can be condoned under Section 119(2)(b) to avoid genuine hardship. Further, refunds of wrongfully deducted TDS on exempt compensation must be granted with interest under Section 244A, as the Government's retention of such amounts is unauthorized.

The final determination was to allow the petition, quash the impugned order rejecting condonation, and direct the Respondent to condone the delay and process the refund claim with interest within twelve weeks.

---