MR M S LINGASHETTY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court permitted the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition. Liberty was granted to file an application under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and to restore the writ petition if the settlement does not materialize.
What were the facts?
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Income Tax Officer and proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Year 2014-15. The petitioner later filed a memo seeking to withdraw the petition.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the petitioner's challenge to the IT department's proceedings. The case was resolved by allowing withdrawal to pursue a settlement scheme.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV
WRIT PETITION No.2767/2021 (T-IT)
BETWEEN:
Mr. M.S. Lingashetty, S/o M. Sanjeeva Shetty, Aged about 60 years, Residing at: Bhadra Sai, JCR Extention, Chitradurga.
… Petitioner
(By Sri Harish V.S., Advocate)
AND:
The Income Tax Officer, ITO Ward 1, Aayakar Bhavan, Tamatkal Road, Medehally, Chitradurga - 577 502.
… Respondent
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned order passed by the respondent disposing of the objections filed by the petitioner, dated 10.12.2019, for the Assessment Year 2014-15 vide Annexure-D and consequently declare that the proceedings initiated by the respondent under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act against the petitioner for the Assessment Year 2014-2015, is illegal and bad in law and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for orders this day, the Court, made the following:
ORDER
Petitioner has filed a memo, which reads as follows: "The petitioner humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to withdraw the above writ petition, granting leave/liberty to the petitioner to file an application for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, and avail the benefit of the Scheme and further reserving liberty to seek restoration of the above writ petition at an appropriate stage, in an event the settlement under the Scheme does not materialise so as to meet the ends of justice."
In light of the said memo, petition is dismissed. Liberty is reserved to initiate proceedings regarding the same cause of action, if settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme does not materialise.
In light of the memo filed, office objections are overruled.
Sd/- JUDGE VP
More judgments on Section 148
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- J.M.Swamy vs. Government Of INDIAKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Acc LTD. vs. Secy.Industries Deptt.Orissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Kumaran Transports (Tuticorin) Private Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner Madras · 16 Oct 2026