LATHA BALAKRISHNAN vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:50708
WP No. 28960 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010629262026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 15 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 28960 OF 2026 (T-IT)
BETWEEN:
LATHA BALAKRISHNAN
AGED 58 YEARS,
W/O BALAKRISHNAN,
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF BLK 111,
NO.07-18, HO CHING ROAD,
SINGAPORE 610111.
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.23,
CANARA BANK COLONY,
3RD BLOCK EAST, JAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE 560011.
Digitally
signed by
VANAMALA
N
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAVI SHANKAR S V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE INCOME TAX OFFICER
WARD 7(2)(1)
BANGALORE 560095.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
OF INCOME TAX,
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:50708
WP No. 28960 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010629262026
CENTRAL PROCESSING UNIT,
ELECTRONIC CITY POST OFFICE,
BANGALORE 560100.
3.
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
CIRCLE INT TAX 1(1)(2)
NEW DELHI 560001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. E. I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.M. THIRUMALESH, ADVOCATE A/W
SRI. NIRMAL MATHEW, ADVOCATE FOR R1 &
R3;
SRI. ARAVIND V. CHAVAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUITON OF INDIA PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR A DIRECTION IN
THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING
THE INTIMATION U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT DATED
19/10/2016 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2
IN DIN CPC/1617/A2/1629320517 FOR THE
ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17 (ANNEXURE-A).II)
ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS, OR ANY OTHER
APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE
NATURE OF A WRIT OF MANDAMUS, DIRECTING
THE RESPONDENTS TO VERIFY AND GRANT THE
PETITIONER THE LEGITIMATE TDS CREDIT OF
RS.9,47,600/-DEDUCTED IN RESPECT OF THE
SALE TRANSACTION AND THEREAFTER
RECOMPUTE THE TAX LIABILITY AND PROCESS
THE CONSEQUENTIAL REFUND, TOGETHER WITH
APPLICABLE INTEREST, FOR THE AY 2016-17.
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:50708
WP No. 28960 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010629262026
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 seeks quashing of the Intimation
dated 19.10.2016 [ Annexure – A ] under Section
143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner is
informed that [a] the amount claimed as TDS is
Rs. 9,47,600/-, [b] the amount matched is only
Rs.46,000/-, and [c] the mismatch is in a sum of
Rs.9,01,600/-. The petitioner's case is that she has
sold her property to one Mr. Ramineni Gopinath for a
total consideration of Rs.46,00,000/- and has
claimed certain amounts as expenditure based on
indexation towards cost of acquisition, cost of
improvement and expenditure with regard to transfer.
The petitioner contends that she would be entitled for
a refund of Rs . 3,10,870 and the sale transaction is in
the assessment year 2016-17.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:50708
WP No. 28960 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010629262026
2. Mr. Ravi Shankar S V, the learned counsel
for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner must be
admitted to refund of Rs.3,10,000/- computing the
entire amount of Rs.9,47,000/- claimed as TDS; and
in this regard, the learned counsel, inviting this
Court's attention to the challans dated 16.11.2015
and 17.11.2015 and the petitioner's Income Tax
Returns filed [ as per Annexure – B ], submits that the
seller has deducted 20% of the sale consideration as
is prescribed but, as seen in Form 26AS, only a sum
of Rs.46,000/- is accounted for though the seller has
credited Rs.4,73,800/- twice [ as per Annexures – C
and C1 ].
3. Mr. E. I. Sanmathi, a Senior Standing
counsel who accepts notice for the first and third
respondents on behalf of Mr. M. Thirumalesh, the
learned Senior Standing counsel, and Mr. Aravind V.
Chavan, a learned Standing counsel who accepts
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:50708
WP No. 28960 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010629262026
notice for the second respondent, submit that the
purchaser, because was transacting with the
petitioner [ an NRI ], had to deduct 20% of the
transactional value and declare it in Form 27Q but
the seller has declared under Form 26QB which only
allows 1% to be deducted and the anomaly could be
because of this error.
4. The learned Standing counsels submit
that if the petitioner had approached the
Jurisdictional Assessing Officer [ the first respondent ]
with a due representation, this officer could have
considered all circumstances and passed appropriate
orders for refund. Mr. Ravi Shankar S V cannot
dispute that the petitioner has not filed any
representation with the first respondent and also that
the anomaly could be because of the aforesaid
.
reasons. In the light of the afore, the following
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:50708
WP No. 28960 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010629262026
ORDER
[A] The petition stands disposed of with
liberty to the petitioner to file a
certified copy of this order and a
representation with the first
respondent [ the Income Tax Officer,
Ward 7(2)(1), Bengaluru ] by
06.11.2026 calling upon the first
respondent to examine all aspects and
decide on the anomaly to admit the
petitioner to such refund as may be
permissible in law.
[B] The first respondent, if the petitioner's
cause is found acceptable, shall
ensure a report is caused to the
second respondent [ the Deputy
Commissioner of Income Tax, Central
Processing Unit ] for admissible refund
and the petitioner shall be
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:50708
WP No. 28960 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010629262026
communicated about this report
within six [6] weeks from the date of
receipt of a representation.
Sd/-
(B M SHYAM PRASAD)
JUDGE
RB
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 20