ITTINA INFRA-TECH LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP/13329/2022HC KarnatakaKAHC01029519202209 September 2022Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the ITAT. The matter was remitted back to the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to submit additional pleadings and documents, which the respondents are to consider. The High Court explicitly stated that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the rival contentions, and all such contentions were kept open. The principle is that if an assessee demonstrates sufficient cause for non-prosecution of appeals and has made subsequent payments, the appellate authorities should consider providing an opportunity for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ittina Infra-Tech Limited, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging an order dated 16.08.2010 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and an order dated 22.02.2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The petitioner contended that it could not prosecute its appeals before the lower authorities due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances, and sufficient cause. It also submitted that payments had been made subsequently, evidenced by payment challans. The High Court, in a justice-oriented approach, decided to provide the petitioner with another opportunity.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the ITAT should be set aside and the matter remanded for reconsideration. The petitioner argued that it failed to prosecute its appeals before the lower authorities due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances, and sufficient cause, and that subsequent payments were made. The petitioner relied on the judgment in D. Komalakshi Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. The revenue's contentions are not recorded in the judgment.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCH

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

WRIT PETITION No.13329 OF 2022(T-IT)

BETWEEN:

ITTINA INFRA-TECH LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 NO.1054, 7TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK KORAMANGALA BANGALORE-560 034. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESENT DIRECTOR, MR MANU I TTINA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. A. SHANKAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. SANDEEP HULIGOL., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU-560 095.

2 . THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 BANGALORE BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU-560 095.

3 . THE COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-VI BANGALORE NO.324, CR BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BENGALURU-560 001.

4 . THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) MYSORE, NO.55/1, SHILPASHREE VIDYARANYA COMPLEX VISHVESHWARANAGAR MYSORE-570 008.

2 5 . INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS DEPUTY REGISTRAR NO.51, BEHIND JAL BHAWAN 1ST CROSS, 4TH T BLOCK TILAK NAGAR, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560 041.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND., ADVOCATE)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED COMMON ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 22.02.2013 BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, BANGALORE IN THE PETITIONERS APPEALS BEARING ITA NOS.1463 AND 464/BANG/2010 UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 AND 2007-08 ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

ORDER

In this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned order at Annexure-B dated 16.08.2010 passed by respondent No.3-Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the impugned order at Annexure-A dated 22.02.2013 passed by the respondent No.5-Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) and for other reliefs.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

The material on record discloses that though several contentions have been urged by both sides, in support of their respective claims, having regard to the specific assertion on the part of the petitioner that it could not prosecute the appeals before respondent Nos.3 to 5 due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause and in view of the payments having been made by the petitioner subsequently as can be seen from the payment challans at Annexures-V1 and V2 and in the light of the judgment of this Court in the case of D. Komalakshi Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax – ILR 2007 KAR 898, in order to provide one more opportunity to the petitioner by adopting justice oriented approach, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions, I deem it just and proper to set aside the impugned orders and remit the matter back to respondent Nos.3 and 4 for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.

In the result, I pass the following:

4 ORDER

(i) Petition is hereby allowed.

(ii) The impugned order at Annexure-B dated 16.08.2010 passed by respondent No.3-Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the impugned order at Annexure-A dated 22.02.2013 passed by the respondent No.5-Income Tax Appellate Tribunal are hereby set aside. (iii) Matter is remitted back to the respondents Nos.3 and 4 for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.

(iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit additional pleadings documents etc., to the said respondents, who shall consider the same and proceed further in accordance with law.

(v) All rival contentions are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.

Sd/- JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →