ULTIMATE CIVIC BUILD TECH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP/6174/2023HC KarnatakaKAHC01014804202317 April 2023Author: B M SHYAM PRASAD4 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Karnataka permitted the petitioner to file a memo for withdrawal of the writ petition. The petitioner stated that on advice, they wished to challenge the assessment order and consequential computation sheet and demand notice issued under Section 156 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2018-19 before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals]. This decision was made because the time limit to file an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] is 30 days from the date of receipt of the assessment order. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the case.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ultimate Civic Build Tech, a registered partnership firm, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging notices and an order issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (R1) for Assessment Year 2018-19. Specifically, the petitioner sought to quash a notice issued under Section 148A(b) dated March 9, 2022, an order passed under Section 148A(d) dated March 24, 2022, and a notice issued under Section 148 dated March 28, 2022. These actions were taken by R1, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(3), Bangalore.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notices and order issued under Sections 148A(b), 148A(d), and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2018-19 are liable to be quashed. The petitioner's contention, as indicated by their withdrawal memo, is that they wish to challenge the assessment order and consequential computation sheet and demand notice issued under Section 156 of the Act before the Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals]. This decision is based on the advice received and the time limit available for filing an appeal before the appellate authority. The revenue's contentions are not recorded in the judgment as the matter was disposed of on the petitioner's withdrawal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A(b),Section 148A(d),Section 148,Section 156

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6174 OF 2023 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

ULTIMATE CIVIC BUILD TECH A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SRI R HARI PRASAD, S/O SRI T RAMACHANDRA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OFFICE AT CU 003, ULTIMATE SIGNATURE, 98/2, 99/2, ISRO LAYOUT, BANGALORE 560064. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANNAMALAI S.,ADVOCATE) AND:

1.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, NO 1, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE 560001.

2.

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING,

Digitally signed by NARASIMHA MURTHY VANAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

NO 1, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE 560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.V. ARAVIND., SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148A(b) OF THE ACT DATED 09.03.2022 BEARING DIN AND LETTER NO.ITBA/AST/F/ 148A(SCN)/ 2021-22/ 1040522070(1) ISSUED BY THE R1 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018- 19 HEREIN MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A1; QUASH THE ORDER DATED 24.03.2022 PASSED U/S 148A(d) OF THE ACT BEARING DIN AND ORDER NO.ITABA/ COM/F/148A/2021-22/1041449289(1) ISSUED BY THE R1 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19 HEREIN MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A2; QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 28.03.2022 ISSUED U/S 148 OF THE ACT BEARING DIN AND NOTICE NO.ITBA/AST/S/148- 1/2021-22/1041794343(1) ISSUED BY THE R1 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19 HEREIN MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A3.

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

ORDER

Sri. Annamalai S, the learned counsel for the petitioner, seeks leave to place on record a memo for withdrawal. The learned counsel is permitted, and the memo is taken on record. The petitioner has stated thus as the reason for withdrawal.

"The petitioner on advice wishes to challenge the said assessment order and consequential computation sheet and demand notice issued under section 156 of the Act for the A.Y. 2018-19 passed by the respondent No.1 before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] by withdrawing the present writ petition filed before this Hon'ble Court, since the time limit to file appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] is 30 days from date of receipt of the assessment order."

In view of the afore, the petition stands dismissed as withdrawn.

Sd/- JUDGE

AN/-

More judgments on Section 148A(b)

All 524 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →