K.SATHISH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP/3778/2023HC KarnatakaKAHC01008505202327 May 2024Bench: S SUNIL DUTT YADAV4 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court did not decide on the merits of the writ petition. The petitioner sought to withdraw the petition because a subsequent assessment order for AY 2016-17 had been passed on 29.05.2023, raising a demand of Rs. 73,04,904/-. The petitioner intended to file a fresh writ petition challenging this assessment order. The Court allowed the withdrawal of the present writ petition, noting that a fresh petition had been filed. All contentions were kept open, and liberty was reserved to challenge the impugned order in other proceedings. The Court did not express any opinion on the validity of the instruction or the assessment order.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, K. Sathish, proprietor of Sathish Poultry Farm, filed a writ petition challenging an instruction dated 11.05.2022 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). The petitioner contended that this instruction was ultra vires certain sections of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and a Supreme Court judgment. During the pendency of this writ petition, the respondent Income Tax Officer passed an assessment order for Assessment Year 2016-17 on 29.05.2023, raising a demand of Rs. 73,04,904/-. The petitioner then filed a memo seeking to withdraw the current writ petition, stating that they intended to file a fresh writ petition challenging the subsequent assessment order, as it was more convenient than amending the current one. The High Court noted that a fresh petition had been filed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the instruction dated 11.05.2022 issued by the CBDT is ultra vires Section 147, 148, 149, and 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and Section 3 of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, and the judgment in Re Ashish Agarwal (2022) 444 ITR 1 (SC)? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the instruction issued by the CBDT was beyond its statutory powers and conflicted with the provisions of the Income Tax Act and the Supreme Court's decision in Re Ashish Agarwal. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue regarding this issue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 149,Section 151

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

NC: 2024:KHC:17609 WP No. 3778 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MAY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 3778 OF 2023 (T-IT) BETWEEN: 1. K.SATHISH SON OF SRI KRISHNAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, NO.101 PROPRIETOR OF 'SATHISH POULTRY FARM', CHANDAPURA, HOSUR MAIN ROAD ANEKAL, BENGALURU - 560 081 PRESENT ADDRESS - NO.222 ROYAL GADENIA, NEAR CANARA BANK, 7TH CROSS, BOMMASANDRA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, BENGALURU - 560 099 … PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHREEHARI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 7(2)(5), BENGALURU, THE 'ASSESSING OFFICER' UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 095 Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

NC: 2024:KHC:17609 WP No. 3778 of 2023 2. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2 BENGALURU AN 'INCOME TAX AUTHORITY', UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 095 3. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, REP. BY CHAIRMAN, CBDT, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110 011 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. E I SANMATHI, ADVOCATE)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE INSTRUCTION NO.01/2022 (F.NO.279/MISC/M-51/2022-ITJ) DTD. 11.05.2022 ISSUED BY THE R-3 AND ENCLOSED AS ANNX-A AS IT IS ULTRA-VIRES THE SECTION 147, 148, 149 AND 151 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, SECTION 3 OF THE TAXATION AND OTHER LAWS (RELAXATION AND AMENDMENT OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS) ACT, 2020 AND THE JUDGEMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN RE ASHISH AGARWAL REPORTED IN 444 ITR 1 (SC) AND ETC.

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

Learned counsel for the petitioner files a memo which reads as hereunder:

- 3 -

NC: 2024:KHC:17609 WP No. 3778 of 2023 "Petitioner craves leave to withdraw this writ petition for the reason that there is extreme emergency in this matter since the respondent has taken further action and passed an assessment order for the AY 2016-17 on 29.05.2023 by raising an exorbitant demand of Rs.73,04,904/- pursuant to filing of this writ petition and therefore the petitioner is preferring another writ petition challenging the said assessment order instead of filing an IA to this writ petition for the sake of convenience. It is further submitted that the fresh writ petition which is being filed contains similar prayer as this writ petition and therefore the petitioner is withdrawing this writ petition. WHEREFORE, it is humbly prayed that this memo for withdrawing writ petition No. 3778/2023 may be allowed in the interest of justice."

2.

In light of the subsequent events including passing of assessment order, fresh petition has been filed. In light of the same, petition is dismissed. All contentions

- 4 -

NC: 2024:KHC:17609 WP No. 3778 of 2023 are kept open. Liberty to challenge the impugned order in other proceedings is also reserved.

Office objections are overruled. Sd/- JUDGE VP

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →