MRS MALASANI SANJEEVA SETTY ANJANAKSI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP/2747/2021HC KarnatakaKAHC01013958202010 February 2021Bench: S SUNIL DUTT YADAV3 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Karnataka considered a memo filed by the petitioner. In the memo, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file an application for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The petitioner also requested liberty to seek restoration of the writ petition at an appropriate stage if the settlement under the Scheme did not materialize. In light of this memo, the Court dismissed the petition. Liberty was reserved to initiate proceedings regarding the same cause of action if the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme does not materialize. No decision was made on the merits of the original challenge.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mrs. Malasani Sanjeeva Setty Anjanaksi, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging an order passed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward 1, Chitradurga. The challenge was to the ITO's order disposing of objections filed by the petitioner dated 10.12.2019 for assessment year 2014-15, and consequently, the proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner also sought to quash the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act dated 23.12.2019 and the consequential demand notice issued on the same date, both pertaining to assessment year 2014-15.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the proceedings initiated by the respondent under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act against the petitioner for the assessment year 2014-15 are illegal and bad in law. 2. Whether the impugned order disposing of objections dated 10.12.2019, the assessment order dated 23.12.2019, and the consequential demand notice dated 23.12.2019 are liable to be quashed. The petitioner sought to quash the aforementioned orders and proceedings. The respondent, the Income Tax Officer, passed the impugned orders. The judgment does not record specific arguments made by either the petitioner or the respondent regarding the merits of the case. Instead, the petitioner filed a memo seeking to withdraw the writ petition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,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.2747/2021 (T-IT)

BETWEEN:

Mrs. Malasani Sanjeeva Setty Anjanaksi W/o MR Sanjeeva Setty Aged about 71 years, Residing at:2nd Cross Malasani Nilaya Behind Shashi Hardware M.H.Road Chitradurga-577501.

… 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 passed by the respondent disposing of the objections filed by the petitioner dated 10.12.2019 for the assessment year 2014-15 vide Annexure-D and consequently declare that the proceedings initiated by the respondent under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act against the petitioner for the assessment year 2014-15, is illegal and bad in law and quash the impugned order of

2 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 2014-15 vide Annexure-F and the consequential demand notice issued by respondent dated 23.12.2019 for the assessment year 2014-15 i.e. Annexure-G.

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

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.

In light of the memo filed, office objections are overruled.

Sd/- JUDGE

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →