The Karnataka High Court has condoned the delay concerning a 60‑year‑old farmer’s application asking for a refund of tax deducted at source (TDS), holding that an incorrect TDS paid under the Income Tax Act due to ignorance of earlier deduction by the Karnataka Mineral Development Corporation (KMDC) cannot be retained by the Revenue.
Murigeppa Kashappa Nara, the applicant, had submitted his income tax return (ITR) for AY 2018-19, but was unable to place the related TDS certificates before the AO during assessment.
KMDC deducted TDS at the time of making payment to him; however, the same fact was not shown in the filed records. Thereafter, the applicant discovered the omission, he submitted a representation on 27 February 2020, and thereafter moved an application u/s 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act seeking condonation of the delay and refund of the excess TDS.
The application has been rejected by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax because it was filed late, without looking into the merits of the refund claim.
Important: Steps to File Condonation Request U/S 119(2)(b) via Offline & Online
The applicant contesting this rejection approached the High Court. They said that the delay was due to inadvertence and that the refund was rightfully due since KMDC had already deducted TDS at the source. The applicant said that rejecting the refund based on a technicality would result in the unfair enrichment of the Revenue.
Counsel for the Income Tax Department opposing the petition cited that the applicant had lost his right to claim the tax refund because of the delay, and therefore, the rejection was correct.
However, the Court discovered that the facts were not in dispute: KMDC had deducted TDS, and the applicant had subsequently provided the certificates. The Court stated that the error originated from the failure of the applicant to submit the documents earlier, but such a delay could be condoned for justice, especially when the tax had already been collected.
Justice M Nagaprasanna held that the case facts warranted condonation of delay and that the representation of the applicant deserved fresh consideration.
Read Also: Delhi HC Dismisses Plea to Condonate ‘Huge’ 9-Month Delay in Revised ITR Filing
The Court explained that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the refund claim, which needs to be independently analysed by the competent authority. It directed the AO to consider the representation of the applicant as per the law and pass appropriate orders within an outer limit of four months.
| Case Title | Murigeppa Kashappa Nara vs. Government of India |
| Case No. | Writ Petition No. 103993 of 2025 |
| For Petitioner | Ms Umera, Sri. H. R. Kambiyavar |
| For Respondent | Sri. M.B. Kanavi |
| Karnataka High Court | Read Order |
