SRI NITIN KUMAR SANGHVI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP/19279/2015HC KarnatakaKAHC01026682201501 July 2015Bench: RAM MOHAN REDDY2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of the writ petition by reserving liberty to the petitioner to raise the plea that the notice dated April 7, 2015, is beyond the period of two years as contemplated by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, before the authority in response to the said notice. The court expressed that if such a plea is made, there is no reason to believe that the authority would not consider and pass orders in accordance with law. The court did not decide on the merits of the plea itself, nor did it address the prayer for refund and interest. The operative direction is to allow the petitioner to raise the issue before the assessing authority.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sri. Nitin Kumar Sanghvi, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging a notice dated April 7, 2015, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (R-4). The petitioner sought to quash this notice and also prayed for the refund of an amount withheld by the respondents, totaling Rs. 11,02,470/-, along with interest at 18% per annum. The respondents include the Commissioner of Income Tax, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Deputy Director of Income Tax, and the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. The writ petition was filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated April 7, 2015, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax is beyond the period of two years as contemplated by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the notice issued by the revenue is beyond the two-year period stipulated in Section 153B(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue regarding this issue. The court's order implies that the revenue would consider the petitioner's plea if raised before the authority.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2015 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19279/2015 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

SRI. NITIN KUMAR SANGHVI AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O LATE SHA VARJIVANDAS SANGHVI, SAMRAT GROUND FLOOR, BAJAJ ROAD KANDIVALI(W), MUMBAI-400 067. ... PETITIONER (By Sri. NATARAJA BALLAL, ADV.,)

AND

1.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KARNATAKA (CENTRAL), CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

2.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, ATTAVAR, MANGALORE – 575 001.

3.

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV) C.R. BUILDING, ANNEXE N.G. ROAD, ATTAVAR, MANGALORE – 575 001.

4.

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1/2, C.R. BUILDING ANNEXE N.G. ROAD, ATTAVAR, MANGALORE – 575 001. ... RESPONDENTS (By Sri. E.I. SANMATHI, ADV.,)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DTD.7.4.2015 ISSUED BY THE R-4 VIDE ANNEX-A TO THE PETITION. DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO REFUND THE AMOUNT WITHHELD BY THEM TO THE TUNE OF RS.11,02,470/- ALONG WITH INTEREST AT 18% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF REFUND TILL ACTUAL PAYMENT & ETC.,

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

The only point canvassed by the learned counsel for petitioner is that the notice dated 07.04.2015 is beyond the period of two years as contemplated by clause (a) of sub section (1) of Section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Reserving liberty to the petitioner to raise such a plea before the authority in response to the notice, Annexure-A, which if made, there is no reason to believe that the authority would not consider and pass orders in accordance with law, petition is accordingly disposed off.

Sd/- JUDGE kcm

More judgments on Section 153B

All 671 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →