G C SOMADAS vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF

PDF · subscribers
WP/19590/2019HC KarnatakaKAHC01012731201904 February 2020Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by requesting the Appellate Authority to take up the petitioner's appeal for consideration within a period of six months. All contentions of the parties were kept open.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Managing Director of M/s Opto Circuits (India) Limited, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the Appellate Authority to expedite the hearing of his appeal due to potential long pendency. The petitioner's grievance stemmed from the workload of the Appellate Authority.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the petitioner's request for an expedited hearing of his appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Authority due to workload concerns. The court considered the possibility of long pendency of the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139(1),Section 10AA,Section 10A,Section 10B,Section 10C,Section 40(a)(ia),Section 43B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

WRIT PETITION NO.19590 OF 2019 (T-IT)

BETWEEN

G.C. SOMADAS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S OPTO CIRCUITS (INDIA) LIMITED, NO.83, ELECTRONIC CITY, HOSUR ROAD, BENGALURU-560100.

… PETITIONER

(BY SRI. M.V. VEDACHALA, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI. ARAVIND V CHAVAN, ADVOCATES)

AND 1. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BNG-5, 5TH FLOOR, ROOM NO.538, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560095.

2.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1)(2), BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560095.

3.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS-5, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560095.

… RESPONDENTS

(By SRI. JEEVAN J NEERALGI, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE

2 THAT RESPONDENTS CANNOT READ THE MANDATE THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME HAS TO BE FILED U/S 139(1) OF THE IT ACT TO EXTEND THE RELIEF U/S 10AA OF THE IT ACT AS CONTEMPLATED U/S 10A, SEC. 10B, SEC. 10C, SEC.40(a) (ia) AND SEC. 43B OF IT ACT AND ETC.

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

ORDER

The short grievance of the petitioner-Assessee is against the possible long pendency of his appeal before the Appellate Authority because of work load on it’s shoulders; he is knocking at the doors of writ court for a direction to the Appellate Authority to take up his appeal for consideration post-haste.

2.

Sri.Jeevan J Neeralgi, learned Panel Counsel on request having accepted notice for the respondents fairly submits that there would be no much difficulty for taking up the subject appeal for consideration if petitioner also cooperates and a period is prescribed by this court for accomplishing the task; this stand of the Respondents is fair and reasonable.

In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed off requesting the Appellate Authority to take up for consideration petitioner’s subject appeal within an outer limit of six months, all contentions of the parties having been kept open.

No costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE

CBC

More judgments on Section 139(1)

All 8,117 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →