MYSORE PALACE BOARD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP/14875/2019HC KarnatakaKAHC01009735201901 September 2021Bench: S SUNIL DUTT YADAV3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Court noted that the CBDT had issued a notification extending exemption to the petitioner retrospectively from 01.06.2011. Consequently, the basis for the reassessment proceedings had become infructuous.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mysore Palace Board, challenged reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. The basis for these proceedings was that the petitioner was not notified under Section 10(46) of the Act.

What were the issues?

Whether reassessment proceedings initiated for lack of exemption under Section 10(46) are valid when exemption is subsequently granted retrospectively.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143,Section 10(46)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV

WRIT PETITION NO.14870/2019 (T-IT)

C/W

W.P Nos.14871/2019, 14872/2019, 14873/2019, 14874/2019 and 14875/2019 (T-IT)

BETWEEN:

Mysore Palace Board Mysore Palace Premises, Sayyaji Rao Road, Mysore-570001 PAN: AAAGM0484M Represented herein by its Executive Officer, Mr. Abhiram G. Sankar Aged about 30 years. …Petitioner

(Common) (By Sri. K. R. Vasudevan, Advocate)

AND:

1.

The Income Tax Officer

Ward 2(2)

Room No. 210, 2nd Floor,

Aayakar Bhavan,

No. 21/16, Residency Road,

Nazarbad, Mysore - 570 010.

2.

The Additional Commissioner of Income tax

Range-2

Aayakar Bhavan,

No.21/16, Residency Road,

Nazarbad,

Mysore - 570 010.

3.

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax

Aayakar Bahvan,

No. 21/16, Residency Road,

Nazarbad,

Mysore - 570 010. ...Respondents

(Common) (By Sri. K. V. Aravind, Advocate)

These Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to declare that the impugned proceedings initiated by the R-1 Under Section 147 read with Section 143 of the I.T. Act are opposed to law and therefore without jurisdiction and etc.

These Writ Petitions coming on for Preliminary hearing 'B' group this day, the Court made the following:

O R D E R Learned counsel for the petitioners has filed a memo dated 09.03.2021 in all the petitions, which reads as follows; "(d) The Petitioner submits that the CDBT has since issued Notification No.S.O.1188(E) dated 20.03.2020 (enclosed as ANNEXURE) amending its earlier Notification dated

3 09.04.2019 to extend the exemption to the Petitioner with retrospective effect from 01.06.2011.

(e) The entire basis of initiation of proceedings under Section 148 of the IT Act was for the reason that the Petitioner was not notified under Section 10(46) and since the CBDT has not granted the exemption under Section 10(46) of the IT Act from 01.06.2011, the prayer sought by the Petitioner in the subject writ petition has therefore become infructuous."

In light of the memo, petitions are dismissed as having become infructuous.

Sd/- JUDGE

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →