WP/19498/2026 of Sri Vissamsetty Ramakrishna Vs The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 4 on 15 July 2026

1. The Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax - 4, Hyderabad, Office at Room No. 211, 2nd Floor, A Block, l.T. Tower, A.C. Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500 004.

2. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 13(3), Hyderabad, Office atAayakar Bhawan, Opposite L.B. Stadium, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad - 500 004 (Jurisdictional Assessing Officer).

3. The Union of lndia, represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue (Cenkal Board of Direct Taxes), North Block, New Delhi - 1 '10 001 . ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Nlicre 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be preased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particurarry in the nature of a writ of certiorari calling for the records rerating to the impugned order passed by the 1st Respondent under section 119(2) (b) of the rncome-tax Act. 1961 bearing DrN and Lefter No lrBNcoMtFtlTt2o26-27 i089643736(1) dated 12.06.2026, and quash and set aside the said impugned Order dated 12 06 2026 as being iltegal, perverse, without .jurisdiction and contrary to law, and consequently condone the delay in the filing of the revised returns of income by the Petitioner for the Assessment Years 2020-21 and 2021-22 under Section 119(2Xb) of the Act, and direct the 2nd Respondent (the jurisdictional Assessing Officer) to compute and grant to the Petitioner the refund of the tax deducted at source on the ex-gratia compensation for the Assessment Years 2020-21 and 2021-22, together with interest under Section 2444 of the Act, within such time as this Honble Court may stipulate. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI M.NAGA DEEPAK Counsel for the Respondents : SRI K.SUDHAKAR REDOY (SR.SC FOR TNCOME TAX) The Court made the following: ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT TIYDERABAI) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NANDIKONDA NARSING RAO Writ Petition No.19498 of 2o26 Date of Order : L5.O7.2O26 BETtrIEEN: Sri Vissamsetty Ramakrishna petrtloner Vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4 and tlr''o others ...respondents aBDEB '. fuer Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY) The instant Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying the Court for issuance of a writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of Wit of Cefiioran by calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by respondent No.l under Section 1 19(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 196 1 bearing DIN and Letter No.ITBA/COM/F/17 /2026_ '27/roa96437s6(1), dated 12.O6.2026 lfor short, .the impugned order'f; to quash and to set aside the same as being illegal, perverse, without jurisdiction and contrary to law; consequently, to condone the delay in filing the revised returns of income by the petitioner for the

Assessment Years 2020'21 and 2O2l 22 urrder Section 119(2)(b) of the Act; and to direct respondent No.2 (the jurisdictional Assessing Officer) to compLlte and grant to the petitioner the refund of tax deducted at source on the ex gratia compensation for the Assessment Years 2020 21 and 2021-22, together with interest under Section 244A ol the Act 2, Heard Mr.M. Naga Deepak, learned couLnsel for the petitioner; and Mr. Kamasani Sudhakar Reddy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department, for the respondents.

3. Vide the impugned order, the respondent No.l rejected the application filed b1'the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act seeking condonation of delay to file revised ITRs for the Assessment Years 2020 21 and 2O2l 22.

4. Itisthecaseofpetltionerthatexgratiacclnlpellsationrecerved under the BSNL-Voluntan' Retirement Scheme - 2019 is one u'hich is in the nature of retrenchment compensation r't'hich is fuily exempt urtder second proviso to Section 1o(1o)(b) of the Act; that \'arious coordinate Benches or.income Tax Apperlate Tribunal at chandigarh, ,\hmedabad' Pune' Mumbai' Indore and Bangalore' in identicaliv placed BSNL retirees' granted relief under second proviso to Section iO(lOXb) of the Act; that due to ignoralce of law at the time of filing of the originat income case returns, the petitioner-assessee requested for relief of condonation of delay to file revised ITRs for the Assessment Years 2O2O-21 and 2027-22, and to claim refund out of the tax deducted at source.

5. It is this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner which stood rejected vide the impugned order'

6. When we look into the averments made in respect of identica-l ciaims being allowed by the Benches of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal at Chandigarh, Ahmedabad, Pune, Mumbai' Indore and Bangalore' in identically placed BSNL retirees, this Court is of the considered view that r,r'hen similar fact was brought to the notice of the respondent- Department, the respondents ought to have appreciated the bona fides of the petitioner and the application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act seeking condonation of delay to file revised ITRs for the Assessment Years 2O2O-21 and 2O2l-22' ought to have been considered by the respondent-Depa-rtment with a more pragmatic and liberal approach, by appreciating the genuine hardship that the petitioner had been put to or would be put to' in case if the application seeking for condonation is not allowed'

PaBe 4 of 5

7. A plain reading of the impugned order does not disclose whether respondent No.1 had considered and appreciated the orders passed by Benches of Income Ta-r Appellate Tribunal at chandigarh, Ahmedabad, Pune, Mumbai. Indore and Bangalore, in identically placed BSNL retirees, and also bv other Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals) in its proper perspecll\'e, more particularly, rvher-r those orders have not been challenged anv further and they have attained hnality'

8. To make things r,,,'orse for the respondent-Department, learned counsel for the petitioner has produced before the Court another order passed b1-the Income Ta-x Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad 'SMC'Bench, at Hyderabad, dated 03 .O7 .2026, "vherein in a batch of appeals the lead matter being LT.A.Nos.903 and 904/HYDl2026, wherein similar vier,v had been reiterated by the Bench. In the said judgment, it .a.ppears that similar vieu'has also been followed earlier by the Income 'lax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench in the case of Shri Sekar Gnanaprakasam vs. DCIT1 and also by the Income Tax Appellate 'l'ribunal, Bengaluru Bench in the case of Basappa Balarama and Murthy Rangappa vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 12, wherein the ()oordinateBenchesacrossthecountryhavegrantedreliefand condoned the delal'. I lr A.Nos.1608&1609/CHNY/2026, d6ted 2105 2026 1 l.T.A.Nos.1342 a rro 1427lBANG/2026, Cated 29.O5 '2026

Page 5 ot 5 ':"..:::-::: :-'.,-'* Tribunal across the country' we are rnaine] ,"Ja;, No'1 under perition rt" imp'll'u'"'u"' passed .tlj"j::fi,it,ltll""' Section 11e(2xb) or the lncome Tax Act' ":,,,;"; 12.06.2026- ror No.ITBA/ co *''' "-'-''o'6-27 I to8e643736(1)' dated 12'06' 2026' - the Assessment Years 2o2o-21 afi' 2021-22' stands quashed and set asid'e' The matter stands remitted to respond'ent No'1' The petitioner herein is permitted to file / submit revised lncome Tax returns ' Thereafter, the respondent No ' 1 is d'irected' to consider the case of Petitioner on merits '

10. With these observations' the Writ Petition stands allowed' No

11. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed' SDI. C. DEEPIKA TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// s CTION OFFTCER To, costs ASSI

1. The Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax - 4'' Hyrlerabad' Office at Room No. 211, 2nd Floor, ;''ii'"Jx"'ili''-Toiver' A c Guards' Masab rank' HYderabad - 500 004'

2. The rncome Tax officer, ward 1 3(3), Hyderabad, office at Aayakar Bhawan' opposite L.B. stadium, Bitil""t b:Jbn''Hvderabad - 500 oo4 (Jurisdictional Assessing Officer) ' 3 The Union of lndia, represented by its- Secretarv' Ministry of Finance' nepartment or a","ru"'1c""'n-t)J-eirrd if O/reA Taxes) llllth il004 lliYt Dethi - 11O OOl one cc to sR/ M.NAGA DEE1AK, Advocate. tOpUCJ

5 _One CC to SR tAx). I)PUC]

6. Two CD Copies. M I I(AMASAN, SUDHAKAR REDDy, (Sr Sc FoR ,NcoME BSK PVL \

HIGH COURT DATED: 1StO7t2O26

ORDER

WP.No.19498 of 2026 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 't e f. 1 ytE ST47 a JUI. .i 1t il6 z A {i i t n' ) l\: V \7