MR M S LINGASHETTY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP/2759/2021HC KarnatakaKAHC01013979202010 February 2021Bench: S SUNIL DUTT YADAV3 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Karnataka did not decide the merits of the case. The petitioner filed a memo seeking permission to withdraw the writ petition to file an application for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Court, in light of this memo, dismissed the petition. Liberty was reserved to the petitioner to initiate proceedings regarding the same cause of action if the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme does not materialize. The operative direction is the dismissal of the writ petition with liberty to refile if the settlement fails.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mr. M.S. Lingashetty, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging an order passed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) Ward 1, Chitradurga, dated 10.12.2019, disposing of objections filed by the petitioner. The petitioner also sought to quash proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act and the consequential order of assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 147, dated 23.12.2019, for Assessment Year 2014-15, along with a demand notice dated 23.12.2019. The assessment year in question is 2014-15. The respondent is the Income Tax Officer.

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 2014-2015 are illegal and bad in law. 2. Whether 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 2014-15, and the consequential demand notice are illegal. The petitioner sought to quash these proceedings and orders. The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the petitioner or the revenue regarding the legality of the assessment proceedings or the order. However, the petitioner's subsequent memo indicates an intention to pursue settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

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.2759/2021 (T-IT)

BETWEEN:

Mr. M.S.Lingashetty S/o M.Sanjeeva Shetty Aged about 60 years, Residing at: Bhadra Sai, 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 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 2014-2015, is illegal and bad in law and 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 2014-15 i.e., Annexure-F and the

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

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 →