Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV
WRIT PETITION NO.3985/2021 (T–IT)
BETWEEN:
Ms.Latha Shivanna, Wife of Shri.Subbegowda Shivanna, Aged about 49 years, #480, 5th Main, 9th Cross, Dollars Colony, RMV 2nd Stage, Bengaluru – 560 094. ... Petitioner (By Sri.Gautam Shreedhar Bhardwaj, Advocate)
AND:
The Principal Commissioner of
Income Tax,
3rd Floor, Central Revenue Building,
Queens Road,
Bengaluru – 560 001.
Commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeals) – 11,
Room No.322, III Floor,
Central Revenue Building,
Queen’s Road,
Bengaluru – 560 001.
2 3. The Deputy Commissioner of
Income Tax,
Central Circle 2(2),
Central Revenue Building,
Queen’s Road,
Bengaluru - 560 001. …Respondents (By Sri.K.V.Aravind, Advocate)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order dated 29.01.2021 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) II Annexed Annexure – A and etc.,
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioner is seeking for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 29.01.2021 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Copy of which is enclosed at Annexure-A.
The petitioner has also sought for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to quash the endorsement bearing No.883133400241220 rejecting the application of the petitioner under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, copy of which is produced at Annexure-L.
The petitioner submits that as against the assessment order dated 31.12.2019 for the assessment year 2016-2017, he had filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which however recording the same to be inadmissible was dismissed while finding that there is non-compliance with the requirement under Section 249(4)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as the assessee has failed to pay tax due on the income returned to him.
Though the petitioner asserts that he has in fact paid the tax due however, in light of the relief sought for under the direct tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, he submits that he is agreeable to pay the tax due in terms of Section 249(4)(a) of the Act within a reasonable time as may be pointed out by the authority.
Reliance is placed on the judgment by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of D.Komalakshi v/s The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
4 reported in ILR 2007 Kar 898. Attention is drawn to the observations at paragraph 13.
Taking note that the petitioner’s application under the aforesaid scheme has been rejected noting non- compliance with the deposit of tax in terms of Section 249(4)(a) of the Act as per the endorsement at Annexure- L, the contentions raised by the petitioner calls for consideration. The Division Bench of this Court while noticing the conditions precedent under Section 249(a) of the Act has exercised its discretion while permitting assessee to pay the admitted amounts before the authority while directing the Commissioner appeals to consider the appeals on its merits.
Noting that the application of the petitioner under the direct tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme has been rejected solely on the ground of non-compliance for not having made deposit under Section 249(4)(a) of the Act it would be a fit case while taking note of the observations of the Division Bench referred to above to permit the
5 petitioner to pay the remaining dues in terms of Section 249(4)(a) of the Act within a period of four weeks from the date of release of this order. While so permitting the order at Annexure-A is set aside and the appeal stands restored. Consequential order of setting aside endorsement at Annexure-L is also set aside and the application of the petitioner in Form-1 to be re-considered by the respondent No.1.
It is made clear that the respondent no.1 to consider processing of the petitioner’s application afresh in light of the restoration of the appeal as per the order passed herein.
It is made clear if the petitioner commits default in making payment within the time stipulated, the benefit of restoration of appeal and so also reconsideration by the respondent No.1 would stand revoked. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off.
It is made clear that if there are any technical difficulties regarding reconsideration of the petitioner's application under the scheme claiming settlement, the petitioner may be called upon to adopt appropriate procedure as may be necessary to invoke benefits under the scheme.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed off.
Sd/- JUDGE