MR AMIT KOTHARI vs. THE ADDITIONAL / JOINT / DEPUTY / ASSISTANT COMMISSINOER OF INCOME TAX / INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP/8695/2022HC KarnatakaKAHC01018835202222 January 2025Bench: S.G.PANDIT3 pages

AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Karnataka, while hearing the writ petition, noted that the learned counsel for the petitioner filed a memo dated January 22, 2025. In this memo, the petitioner sought leave to withdraw the petition. The reason stated for withdrawal was to avail the benefit under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Court acknowledged the memo and ordered that the petition be dismissed as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to the petitioner as sought. No decision was made on the merits of the challenge to the order of disposal of objections.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mr. Amit Kothari, as the legal heir of the deceased M.S. Pushpadevi, filed a writ petition challenging an order of disposal of objections passed by the National E-Assessment Centre (Respondent No. 1) for the Assessment Year 2013-14, dated March 17, 2022. The order was communicated via DIN and letter, and is marked as Annexure-G. The petition was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The respondents include various income tax authorities. The matter was listed for orders before the High Court of Karnataka.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned order of disposal of objections dated 17.03.2022, passed by the National E-Assessment Centre, is liable to be quashed? (Question of law and fact, concerning the validity of the order). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner sought to quash the impugned order. The specific grounds for challenging the order are not detailed in the provided text, but the prayer indicates a dispute regarding its validity. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by the Income Tax Department, is the respondent. No specific arguments or contentions from the revenue are recorded in the judgment excerpt. The judgment only notes the appearance of learned counsel for the respondents.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:2639 WP No. 8695 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO. 8695 OF 2022 (T-IT) BETWEEN: MR. AMIT KOTHARI, THE LEGAL HEIR OF THE DECEASED LATE M.S.PUSHPADEVI, S/O LATE MR. ASHOK KUMAR KOTHARI, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, 63/9, 2ND A MAIN ROAD, NAGAPPA BLOCK, BANGALORE - 560 021. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HARISH V S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/ DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSINOER OF INCOME TAX/ INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL E - ASSESSMENT, CENTRE ROOM NO.401, 2ND FLOOR, E RAMP, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, NEW DELHI - 110 003. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(2)(1), BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 095. Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

- 2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:2639 WP No. 8695 of 2022 3. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE - 560 095. 4. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 2, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE - 560 095. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAVIRAJ Y V., ADVOCATE AND SRI.M.DILIP, ADVOCATE)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF DISPOSAL OF OBJECTIONS PASSED BY THE R-1 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 VIDE DIN AND LETTER DATED 17.3.2022 i.e., ANNEXURE - G AND ETC.,

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT ORAL ORDER

Learned counsel for the petitioner files a memo dated 22.01.2025 seeking leave to withdraw the petition to avail the benefit under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

- 3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:2639 WP No. 8695 of 2022

Memo is placed on record.

Accordingly, petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as sought. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →