M/S. WARTYHULLY ESTATES LIMITED vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2018 BEFORE: THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.4679/2018 (T – IT) BETWEEN:

M/s WARTYHULLY ESTATES LIMITED REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN SRI ZIAULLA SHERIFF, S/O SRI A.G.SHERIFF, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, TOWER-B, 9TH FLOOR, DIAMOND DISTRICT, OLD AIRPORT ROAD, DOMLUR, BENGALURU-560 008

... PETITIONER

[BY SRI A.SHANKAR & SRI M.LAVA, ADVS.]

AND:

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-7 (1) (4), 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, 6TH BLOCK, BENGALURU-560 095.

THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE - 7(1), 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, 6TH BLOCK, BENGALURU-560 095. …RESPONDENTS

[BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.)

- 2 -

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 UNDER SEC. 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DATED 29.12.2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 VIDE ANNEX-A.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

O R D E R

Petitioner has called in question the legality and correctness of the assessment order passed by the Respondent No.1 under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘Act, for short] dated 29.12.2017 relating to the assessment year 2012-13 as well as demand notice issued under Section 156 of the Act marked at Annexures-A & B respectively to the writ petition.

Heard the learned Counsel Sri. A. Shankar, for the petitioner as well as Sri. K.V. Aravind, learned counsel for the respondent.

- 3 - 3. The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner are two fold. Firstly, the assessment order impugned herein is barred by limitation. Secondly, that the objections filed pursuant to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act has not been disposed of prior to passing of the impugned assessment order.

In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the Judgment of this Court in the case of ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER v. B J N HOTELS LIMITED’ reported in [2016] 382 ITR 110 (Karn) as regards the limitation aspect is concerned and the Judgment of this Court in the case of ‘M/s. DEEPAK EXTRUSIONS PVT. LTD., v. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX’ in W.A. No.1725/2017 [DD-15.03.2017] in respect of the second argument advanced i.e., passing of the assessment order sans disposing of the objections

- 4 - raised subsequent to issuance of the notice under section 148 of the Act.

Though learned counsel appearing for the respondent is not accepting the first contention of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, fairly submits that the objections raised by the petitioner has not been disposed of before passing of the assessment order impugned. Thus, it is squarely covered by the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of DEEPAK EXTRUSIONS PVT. LTD., supra, is not in dispute.

In the circumstances, following the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of DEEPAK EXTRUSIONS PVT. LTD., supra, this writ petition stands disposed of setting aside the impugned assessment order at Annexure-A to the writ petition as well as the demand notice at Annexure-B to the writ petition.

- 5 -

However, it is observed that the Assessing Officer shall be at liberty to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open.

Sd/- JUDGE AN/-

M/S. WARTYHULLY ESTATES LIMITED vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER