THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI NARAYANAN KOLLAKKIL KUTTY

WA/602/2023HC KarnatakaKAHC01025290202320 January 2024Author: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA3 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that there was no dispute that the learned Single Judge had followed CBDT Circular No. 9/2015 in passing the impugned order. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the writ appeal filed by the Revenue. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal. No specific issue was left undecided, as the appeal was disposed of on the preliminary ground of maintainability based on the reliance on the CBDT circular.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, comprising the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and the Income Tax Officer, filed a writ appeal against an order dated September 9, 2022, passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P.No.17418/2022. The assessee is Sri. Narayanan Kollakkil Kutty. The appeal challenges the Single Judge's order which was passed following Circular No. 9/2015 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). The assessee's counsel argued that the appeal was not maintainable on merits due to the reliance on the CBDT circular. While the delay in filing was condoned by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, a refund was not ordered.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the writ appeal filed by the Revenue is maintainable on merits, given that the impugned order of the learned Single Judge was passed by following CBDT Circular No. 9/2015? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the appeal was not maintainable on merits because the learned Single Judge had correctly followed CBDT Circular No. 9/2015. The assessee also noted that although the delay was condoned by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, the refund was not ordered. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the Revenue regarding the maintainability of the appeal on merits or any other grounds.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA WRIT APPEAL NO.602 OF 2023 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BENGALURU-1, BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE KORAMANGALA BENGALURU-560 095

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(2)(1), ROOM NO.310 3RD FLOOR, BMTC COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, 80 FEET ROAD KORAMANGALA BENGALURU -560 095 …APPELLANTS

(BY SHRI. M. DILIP, STANDING COUNSEL) AND:

SRI. NARAYANAN KOLLAKKIL KUTTY S/O SRI MADHAVAN NAIR AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS NO.24/25, BYRAVESHWARA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, ANDRAHALLI MAIN ROAD VISWANEEDAM POST PEENYA 2ND STAGE BENGALURU-560 091 …RESPONDENT

(BY Ms. JINITA CHATTERJEE, ADVOCATE FOR SHRI. S. PARTHASARATHI, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P No.17418/2022 (T-IT) DATED 09.09.2022 AND ETC. THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order dated September 9, 2022 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in W.P.No.17418/2022.

Heard Shri M.Dilip, learned standing counsel for the Revenue and Ms.Jinitha Chatterjee, learned advocate for the assessee.

At the outset, Ms.Chatterjee submitted that the Hon’ble Single Judge has passed the impugned order by following Circular No.9/2015 passed by the CBDT1. Therefore, this appeal is not maintainable on merits. She further submitted that though delay has been condoned by the PCIT2, refund is not ordered.

1 Central Board of Direct Taxes 2 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax

We have perused the impugned order. There is no dispute with regard to the Hon’ble Single Judge following Circular No.9/2015. Hence, we find no merit in this appeal and accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed.

In view of disposal of this appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and they stand disposed of.

No costs.

Sd/- JUDGE

AV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →