MR. GOPAL JADWANI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( CENTRAL)

PDF · subscribers
WP/29104/2023HC KarnatakaKAHC01069293202327 February 2024Author: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR4 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of the writ petition as withdrawn. The Court noted the petitioner's submission regarding the delay and the maintainability issue raised by the revisional authority. Crucially, the petitioner sought to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file an appeal before the appropriate appellate authority. The revenue did not object to this course of action. Therefore, the Court deemed it just and appropriate to allow the withdrawal, granting the petitioner liberty to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority within four weeks from the date of the order. The appellate authority was directed to consider the appeal and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, leaving all contentions open. The Court did not decide on the merits of the original revision petition or the grounds for its dismissal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mr. Gopal Jadwani, proprietor of Shree Balaji Traders, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging an order dated 27.06.2023 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central). This order dismissed the petitioner's revision petition filed under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2011-12. The revisional authority dismissed the petition on two grounds: (1) a delay of nine years in filing the revision petition, and (2) the maintainability of a revision against an intimation under Section 143(1), stating that the proper remedy was an appeal under Section 246A of the Act.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the revisional authority was justified in dismissing the revision petition on the grounds of delay and maintainability, considering the petitioner's claim of non-receipt of intimation and bonafide reasons for the delay? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the delay in filing the revision petition was due to non-receipt of the intimation and other bonafide reasons/unavoidable circumstances. The petitioner also sought to withdraw the present writ petition, reserving liberty to file an appeal before the appellate authority under Section 246A, with a direction to the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law. Revenue's Contention: The revenue's counsel had no objection to the petitioner withdrawing the writ petition, by reserving liberty to file an appeal and leaving open all contentions to be decided by the first appellate authority.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 264,Section 143(1),Section 246A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 29104 OF 2023 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

MR. GOPAL JADWANI S/O SHRI MATHRA DAS AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS PROPRIETOR SHREE BALAJI TRADERS No.22/1 6TH CROSS, LAKSHMI ROAD SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE - 560 027. …PETITIONER

(BY SRI NARENDRA KUMAR J.JAIN, ADVOCATE SRI GEETHA RANI K, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) ROOM No.302, III FLOOR CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001.

2.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4) CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI Y V RAVIRAJ, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSITITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH AS FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED BY AN APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR OTHERWISE THE IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE ITBA/COM/M/17/2023/24/1053986089(1) DATED 27/06/2023 ISSUED BY THE LEARNED FIRST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 264 FOR AY 2011-12 ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

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

ORDER

In this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned order dated 27.06.2023 passed by the first respondent – revisional authority, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'I.T. Act') was dismissed by the first respondent.

2.

Perusal of the material on record will indicate that the first respondent – revisional Authority has dismissed the petition on two grounds viz., firstly that there was a long and inordinate delay of nine years in filing the revision petition by the petitione, secondly a revision against the intimation under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act was not maintainable and the proper remedy available to the petitioner was to approach the appellate authority under Section 246A of the I.T. Act.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the inability and omission on the part of the petitioner to approach the

revisional authority within the prescribed period by filing the revision petition was on account of non-receipt of the intimation by the petitioner and due to bonafide reasons / unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause. It is also submitted that the present petition may be disposed of as withdrawn, reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority under Section 246A of I.T.Act, with a direction to the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law.

4.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that he has no objection for the petitioner to withdraw the petition, by reserving liberty to file an appeal by leaving open all contentions to be decided by the first appellate authority.

5.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition as withdrawn, reserving liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the appropriate appellate authority, who shall consider the same and proceed further in accordance with law. If such an appeal is preferred by the petitioner before the appellate authority

within a period of four weeks from today, the appellate authority shall consider and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

Sd/- JUDGE

GH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

More judgments on Section 264

All 338 judgments and leading authorities on Section 264 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →