MR. H K VISHWANATHA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP/2245/2021HC KarnatakaKAHC01013950202010 February 2021Bench: S SUNIL DUTT YADAV2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court considered the memo filed by the petitioner seeking withdrawal of the writ petition. The petitioner's request was based on their intention to pursue settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Court allowed the withdrawal of the writ petition. It explicitly granted liberty to the petitioner to initiate proceedings regarding the same cause of action if the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme did not materialize. No decision was made on the merits of the original assessment order or the demand notice, as the petition was withdrawn. The operative direction was the dismissal of the writ petition with liberty reserved.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mr. H.K. Vishwanatha, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging an order of assessment passed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward 1, Chitradurga, under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment year in question was 2013-14. The petitioner also challenged the consequential demand notice issued by the ITO on the same date. The writ petition was filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. The matter came up for preliminary hearing before the High Court.

What were the issues?

The primary issue before the High Court was whether to entertain the writ petition filed by the petitioner. The petitioner, through a memo filed before the Court, sought permission to withdraw the writ petition. The grounds for withdrawal were to file an application for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and to avail its benefits. The petitioner also sought liberty to seek restoration of the writ petition if the settlement under the Scheme did not materialize. The respondent, the Income Tax Officer, did not file any objections or arguments in response to the writ petition or the memo for withdrawal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV

WRIT PETITION No.2245/2021 (T-IT)

BETWEEN:

Mr.H.K.Vishwanatha S/o H.Kotresha Shetty Aged about 48 years, Residing at: Viashnavi, JCR Extension Chitradurga.

… Petitioner

(By Sri Harish V.S., Advocate)

AND:

The Income Tax Officer, ITO Ward 1, Aayakar Bhavan, Tamatkal Road, Medehally, Chitradurga - 577 502.

… Respondent

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned order of assessment passed by the respondent under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act dated 23.12.2019 for the assessment year 2013-14 i.e., Annexure-A and the consequential demand notice issued by the respondent dated 23.12.2019 for the assessment year 2013-14, i.e., Annexure-B and etc.

This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the Court, made the following:

2 ORDER

Petitioner has filed a memo, which reads as follows:

"The petitioner humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to withdraw the above writ petition, granting leave/liberty to the petitioner to file an application for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, and avail the benefit of the Scheme and further reserving liberty to seek restoration of the above writ petition at an appropriate stage, in an event the settlement under the Scheme does not materialise so as to meet the ends of justice."

2.

In light of the said memo, petition is dismissed. Liberty is reserved to initiate proceedings regarding the same cause of action, if settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme does not materialise.

Sd/- JUDGE

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →