SMT BHIMABAI W/O NIJALINGAPPA vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/200748/2021HC KarnatakaKAHC03024233202125 August 2021Bench: R.NATARAJ4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable as an alternative remedy of revision under Section 264 of the Income-tax Act was available. The petitioner was given liberty to file the revision petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner's application for condonation of delay in filing income tax returns for AY 2017-18 was rejected by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. The petitioner then filed a writ petition challenging this order.

What were the issues?

Whether a writ petition is maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy of revision is available. The maintainability of the writ petition in light of the alternate remedy.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 119,Section 264

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: SMT. BHIMABAI W/O NIJALINGAPPA

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY WRIT PETITION No.200748/2021 (T-IT) BETWEEN: SMT. BHIMABAI W/O NIJALINGAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR SRI. REVANASIDDAPPA S/O: NIJALINGAPPA KATTIMANI AGE: 63 YEARS R/O: NAGANAHALLI TQ & DIST: KALABURAGI.

... PETITIONER (BY SMT. RATNA N. SHIVAYOGIMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 01. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF

INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAVAN

SEDAM ROAD, KALABURAGI-585 102. 02. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER &

LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,

KALABURAGI-585 101. 03. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WARD-3, SEDAM ROAD.

KALABURAGI-585102. ... RESPONDENTS (SRI.AMEETKUMAR DESHPANDE, ADV., FOR R1TOR3 SRI. MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, HCGP FOR R2)

2 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (A) ISSUE A WRIT OR DIRECTION OR ORDER WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 13.05.2019 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN F.NO. /119(2)(B)/PR.CIT/GLB/2018-19, VIDE ANNEXURE- G, (B) ISSUE A WRIT OR DIRECTION OR ORDER WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 3 TO ALLOW THE APPLICATION OF THE MOTHER OF THE PETITIONER FOR PERMISSION TO FILE IT RETURNS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017- 18 BY CONDONING THE DELAY, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURES-C AND D RESPECTIVELY, (C) ISSUE A WRIT OR DIRECTION OR ORDER WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 3 TO REFUND THE AMOUNT OF 10% TDS DEDUCTED AS PER FORM NO.16A, VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ETC.,

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

3 ORDER

This writ petition is filed by the Assessee challenging an order passed under Section 119 (2)(b) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 dated 13.05.2019, by which an application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the returns of income-tax for the Assessment Year 2017-18, was rejected.

2.

The learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 3 submitted that the order impugned in this writ petition is revisable before the Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax under Section 264 of the Income-Tax Act.

3.

In that view of the matter, this writ petition is not maintainable in view of the existence of an alternate efficacious remedy. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed.

4.

It is open to the petitioner to avail the revision remedy before the Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax. If such a revision is filed before the Chief Commissioner of

4 Income-Tax, the time consumed in pursuing this writ petition shall be enlarged for the purpose of determining whether the revision is within the limitation or not? If the revision petition is filed within one month from today, the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax shall decide and shall pass appropriate orders within a period of three months thereafter. Sd/- JUDGE KJJ

More judgments on Section 119

All 707 judgments and leading authorities on Section 119 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →