THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. SRI PRAKASH BHAJANDAS TALREJA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/221/2024HC KarnatakaKAHC01042931202425 September 2024Bench: S.G.PANDIT,C.M. POONACHA3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the office objections were not complied with even on the day of the hearing. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The petitioners' legal heirs filed an execution petition which was dismissed by the City Civil and Sessions Judge. The petitioners then filed a Civil Revision Petition before the High Court. The High Court had granted time to comply with office objections.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the Civil Revision Petition would be prosecuted by the petitioners. The Court's decision was based on the non-compliance with procedural requirements.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 115

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21375 CRP No. 221 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 221 OF 2024 (IO) BETWEEN:

1.

SRI. NAGARAJA C.S., EX STAFF NO. 16316. SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS,

1(a). SMT. A.S. RAJESWARI W/O LATE NAGARAJA C.S., AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,

1(b). SRI. GIRISH NAGARAJA, S/O LATE NAGARAJA C.S. AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

BOTH ARE R/AT NO.118, 4TH MAIN ROAD, INCOME TAX LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGARA, ATTIGUPPE, BENGALORE – 560 040. …PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. N.B. NIJALINGAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND:

1.

M/S. INDIAN TELEPHONE INDUSTRIES LTD., GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR.

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka

- 2 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21375 CRP No. 221 of 2024

2.

ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (HR) BOTH ARE OFFICIATING AT

M/S. INDIAN TELEPHONE INDUSTRIES LTD., GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDERTAKING, DOORAVANI NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 016. …RESPONDENTS

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER ATED 29.10.2022 PASSED IN EX.NO.1328/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, DISMISSING THE EXECUTION PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER 21 RULE 11 OF CPC AS NOT MAINTAINABLE.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

This Court on 05.06.2025, passed a peremptory order, which reads as follows: “One week's time is granted to comply with the office objections. If office objections are complied with, Office to post the matter on the ensuing Thursday.

- 3 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21375 CRP No. 221 of 2024

In the event, office objections are not complied with, the petition would be dismissed for its non-prosecution."

2.

Even today, office objections are not complied with.

3.

Therefore, the petition is dismissed for its non-prosecution.

Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

SJK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4 CT: BHK

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →