MRS JAYSHREEDEVI KOTHARI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP/23672/2018HC KarnatakaKAHC01013650201811 September 2019Bench: P.B.BAJANTHRI2 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition for non-prosecution. The Court noted that the matter was called twice on the current date, and there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. This dismissal is based on the petitioner's failure to prosecute the case, not on the merits of the assessment order itself. The Court had previously directed the petitioner to ascertain and inform the Court about the availability of a statutory remedy before the Appellate Authority, but this query was not addressed due to the petitioner's absence. Therefore, no decision was made on the substantive issues related to the assessment order.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mrs. Jayshreedevi Kothari, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging an assessment order passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-5[2][3], Bangalore, under Section 143 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2015-2016. The assessment order is dated December 28, 2017. The matter was listed for orders. On August 6, 2019, the Court noted that no one appeared for the petitioner and adjourned the matter by four weeks, directing the petitioner to apprise the Court about the availability of a statutory remedy before the Appellate Authority. On the subsequent date of hearing, again, there was no representation for the petitioner.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order passed by the respondent under Section 143 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2015-2016 is liable to be quashed. The petitioner's contention, as indicated by the filing of the writ petition, is that the assessment order is invalid and should be set aside. The Court, in its previous order, raised a specific query regarding the availability of a statutory remedy before the Appellate Authority, implying that this might be a crucial factor in deciding the maintainability of the writ petition. The respondent's contention is not recorded in the judgment. However, the respondent, as the Income Tax Officer, would have likely defended the assessment order passed under Section 143 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI W.P. No.23672/2018 [T-IT] BETWEEN:

MRS. JAYSHREEDEVI KOTHARI W/O. SURESH KUMAR KOTHARI AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.01, OMKAR VIHAR, S.B. ROAD, V.V. PURAM, BANGALORE – 560 004

… PETITIONER

(BY SRI DILRAJ ROHIT SEQUIERA, ADVOCATE - ABSENT)

AND:

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD – 5[2] [3], BMTC COMPLEX, 3RD FLOOR, NO.306, KORAMANGALA, 6TH BLOCK, BANGALORE – 560 095

... RESPONDENT

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 143 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DTD 28.12.2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-2016 VIDE ANNX-A AND ETC.

THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

ORDER

On 6.8.2019, the following order was passed:

“Matter called twice.

None appears. Adjourned by four weeks.

Petitioner has to apprise this Court “Whether he has statutory remedy before the Appellate Authority or not? On the next date of hearing.”

Even today the matter was called twice, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Hence, petition stands dismissed for non-prosecution.

Sd/- JUDGE

Bkm

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →