Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
1 W.P. No.20882/2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JULY, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO.20882/2013 (T-IT)
BETWEEN:
M/s. CHITRADURGA DISTT. CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD., D.C. OFFICE ROAD, CHITRADURGA – 577 501 REP., BY M.D. G. KUBERAPPA, S/O THIMMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
PETITIONER.
(BY SRI S. PARTHASARATHY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, PARK VIEW BUILDING, PJ EXTENSION, DAVANGERE – 577 004.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX PARK VIEW BUILDING, PJ EXTENSION, DAVANGERE – 577 004.
2 W.P. No.20882/2013 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), CR BUILDING ANNEX, 1ST FLOOR, P.B. ROAD, NAVA NAGAR, HUBLI-580025.
RESPONDENTS.
(BY SRI THIRUMALESH, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 06.05.2013 VIDE ANNEXURE ‘D’ AND RESTRAIN THE FIRST RESPONDENT FROM PROCEEDING FURTHER IN THE MATTER OF RECOVERY OF THE IMPUGNED DEMAND IN PURSUANCE OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 06.05.2013 VIDE ANNEXURE ‘D’.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRL. HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
An assessee in appeal has challenged the order dated 06.05.2013 Annexure ‘D’ of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Davangere, dismissing the application for stay of the demand for the assessment year 2010-11.
A bare perusal of the order Annexure ‘D’ discloses non-application of mind to the assertions made by the petitioner in the application for stay of the
3 W.P. No.20882/2013 demand notice. The order further discloses that it is cryptic and is passed in a lackadaisical and cavalier manner. The Officer instead of addressing the grievance of the petitioner, has deployed certain words, which have no meaning in a quasi judicial proceedings. The order does not assign reasons, and findings, except conclusion to dismiss the application for stay. In Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works Vs. CIT, Mysore1., the Apex Court observes that: “Recording of reasons is a part of fair procedure. Reasons are harbinger between the mind of maker of the decision in the controversy and the decision or conclusion arrived at. They substitute subjectivity with objectivity.”
Their Lordships further followed the observation in Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. Vs. Crabtree2 that failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice.
1 2005(2) SCC 329 2 1974 LCR 120
4 W.P. No.20882/2013
Applying the very same principles and observations, it is needless to state that the order Annexure ‘D’ of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Davangere, calls for interference.
Petition is allowed in part. The order dated 06.05.2013 Annexure ‘D’ of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Davangere, is quashed and proceeding remitted for consideration afresh.
As regards relief for a direction to the third respondent to dispose of the appeal, it is open for the petitioner to make an appropriate representation before the said respondent for early disposal.
Sd/-
JUDGE
sma