MR. H B SATHYABHAMA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP/2794/2021HC KarnatakaKAHC01013952202010 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 permitted the withdrawal and 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 did not materialise. No finding was given on the legality of the assessment proceedings or the impugned orders.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ms. H.B. Sathyabhama, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging an order dated 10.12.2019 disposing of her objections, an assessment order dated 23.12.2019 under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and a consequential demand notice dated 23.12.2019. These orders pertained to Assessment Year 2014-15 and were passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Chitradurga. The proceedings were initiated under Section 148 of the Act. The petitioner sought to quash these orders and declare the proceedings illegal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment proceedings initiated under Section 148 and the consequent assessment order under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 for Assessment Year 2014-15 are illegal and bad in law. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner sought to quash the impugned orders and proceedings, arguing they were illegal and bad in law. No specific grounds or reliance on authorities were recorded in the judgment for the petitioner's initial challenge. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the respondent Revenue regarding the legality of the assessment proceedings or the impugned orders.

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.2794/2021 (T-IT)

BETWEEN:

Mr. H.B.Sathyabhama D/o H.Basavaraja Setty Aged about 46 years, Residing at: Varsha, Opp. Horticulture Office, VP Extention, 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.

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 VP

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →