Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2013 B E F O R E THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO.35859/2013 (T-IT) BETWEEN:
M/s. Bangalore Pharmaceutical & Research Laboratory (P) Ltd., No.163, Reservoir Street, Basavanagudi, Bangalore – 560 004, Represented by its Managing Director Sri S.T. Raghavendra Mady, Aged about 77 years, Son of Sri S. Thammaiah Mady.
…PETITIONER
(By Sri S. Parthasarathi, Adv.)
AND:
The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 11(2), 14/3, 5th Floor, R.P. Bhavan, Nrupathunga Road, Bangalore – 560 001.
.. RESPONDENT
(By Sri K.V. Aravind, CGSC)
This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order of the
2 respondent under S.154 of the Act dated 11.6.2013 for the assessment year 2010-11 vide Annexure-H and etc.
This petition coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
Petitioner is an Income tax assessee.
An assessment order dated 28.3.2012 was passed under S.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short) for the assessment year 2010-11. Petitioner filed an application under S.154 of the Act before the Assessing Officer to rectify the mistake allegedly apparent from the record in the said order of assessment. The said application having been rejected and a communication to that effect having been sent on 11.6.2013 vide Annexure- H, this writ petition was filed.
Heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the writ petition record.
Main grievance of the petitioner as against the order as at Annexure-H is with regard to not providing of
3 an opportunity of hearing at the time of consideration of the application as at Annexure-G and while passing the order as at Annexure-H. 4. A perusal of the order as Annexure-H does not indicate that the petitioner having been either notified of the hearing date or having been heard in the matter of request made seeking rectification of the assessment order for the year 2010-11. The Assessing Officer having examined the record and finding that there is no error apparent on the record, has rejected the application dated 25.4.2013 of the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner that it was denied an opportunity of hearing by the Assessing Officer in the matter of consideration of the request for rectification of the assessment order dated 28.3.2013 is well founded. In the circumstances, the order dated 11.6.2013 being vitiated, cannot be sustained.
In the result, writ petition is allowed in part and the order of the respondent dated 11.6.2013 as at Annexure- H, rejecting the rectification application dated 25.4.2013 of
4 the petitioner is quashed. Consequently, the respondent is directed to reconsider the application vide Annexure-G dated 25.4.2013 of the petitioner, by providing an opportunity of hearing.
In order to expedite the proceedings, petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent on 28.10.2013 at 3 p.m. and receive further orders.
Needless to observe that the respondent has an obligation to consider the application as at Annexure-G in accordance with law and pass order. The order of attachment of rent passed earlier shall subsist. However, the same be given effect to, if necessary, only after the application as at Annexure-G is decided.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Ksj/-