M/S KAMMAVARI CREDIT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF MARCH 2013 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.MANOHAR WA Nos.5821 – 5822/2012 (T-IT) BETWEEN : M/S KAMMAVARI CREDIT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, 10, 22ND MAIN ROAD, JAYANAGAR, HBCS LAYOUT, PADMANABHANAGAR, BANGALORE-560070, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI T BHADRACHALAM, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O SRI T ANJANEYALUNAIDU. APPELLANT ( By Sri. S PARTHASARATHI, ADV.) AND : 1 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(1), BANGALORE – 560 001.

2 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE-II C R BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. RESPONDENTS THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 11624-625/12 DATED 26/7/12. These writ appeals coming on for preliminary hearing this day, N KUMAR J, delivered the following: JUDGMENT These appeals are preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge, who has set aside the order passed by the Revisional Authority as per Annexure-K and remanded the matter back to the Revisional Authority for fresh consideration on merits as well as if an application is filed for condonation of delay. 2. The apprehension of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Revisional Authority has authority to decide the case on merits. If an application for condonation

3 of delay is filed in filing the revised returns and the delay is condoned, the order on merits would stand. Therefore, he submits that no useful purpose is served in remanding the matter. 3. Learned Single Judge was of the view that in the absence of application for condonation of delay in filing the revised returns, the Revisional Authority could not have considered the case on merits. Therefore, he has passed the order remanding the matter back to the Revisional Authority. If an application for condonation of delay in filing the revised return is filed before the Revisional Authority and if the said delay is already condoned, that order stands and there is no need to file a fresh application. If such an application is not filed, learned Single Judge has given an opportunity to the appellant to file one more application with authority to consider the application. Even if the

4 Revisional Authority decides the case on merits, all the decisions, which are cited by the appellant, have to be considered by the Revisional Authority. We are sure that they would keep an open mind, consider the authorities and decide the case on merits without being influenced by its earlier order. In that view of the matter, we do not find any justification to entertain these appeals. Accordingly the appeals are rejected. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE bkm.