M/S KAMMAVARI CREDIT CO OPERATIVE vs. THE ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP/11624/2012HC KarnatakaKAHC01001971201226 July 2012Bench: H.G.RAMESH3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court set aside the Commissioner's order. It directed the petitioner to file an application for condonation of delay in filing the revised return, after which the Commissioner would reconsider the matter.

What were the facts?

The petitioner challenged an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 264, arguing it was based on the original return instead of the revised return. The respondents contended that a delay condonation application was necessary for the revised return.

What were the issues?

Whether the Commissioner should have considered the revised return and if a delay condonation application was required for the revised return.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 264,Section 143(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: REPRESENTED BY ITS

W.P.Nos.11624-625/2012 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY 2012 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH W.P.Nos.11624-625/2012 (T-IT) BETWEEN: M/S KAMMAVARI CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED 10, 22ND MAIN ROAD, JAYANAGAR HBCS LAYOUT, PADMANABHANAGAR BANGALORE-560 070 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI T.BHADRACHALAM AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS SON OF SRI T.ANJANEYALU NAIDU

… PETITIONER (BY SRI P.DINESH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI S.PARTHASARATHI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 4(1), BANGALORE 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALIORE-II, C.R.BUILDING 1ST FLOOR, QUEEN’S ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.V.SESHACHALA, SR. COUNSEL) WPs ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF THE R2 DATED. 19.3.12 PASSED UNDER SECTION 264 OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 IN FILE F.NO.264/CIT-II/2011-12 VIDE ANNEX-K AND QUASH THE INTIMATION DATED 18.2.2009 UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT ISSUED BY THE R1 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 VIDE ANNEX-C AND ETC.

W.P.Nos.11624-625/2012 - 2 - WPs COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: O R D E R H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral): These writ petitions are directed against the order dated 19.03.2012, passed under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Commissioner of Income Tax, a copy of which is produced as Annexure-K. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is unsustainable in law as the Commissioner has examined the matter on the basis of the original return and she should have examined the matter on the basis of the revised return. Mr.M.V.Seshachala, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner ought to have filed an application for condonation of the delay in filing the revised return and if the petitioner files an application for condonation of the delay in filing the revised return,

W.P.Nos.11624-625/2012 - 3 - the Commissioner will reconsider the matter in accordance with law. 3. In view of the above, I make the following order: The impugned order dated 19.03.2012 at Annexure-K is set-aside. The petitioner shall file an application for condonation of the delay in filing the revised return. On such filing of the application, the Commissioner shall consider the matter in accordance with law. Petitions disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE Yn/ata.

More judgments on Section 264

All 338 judgments and leading authorities on Section 264 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →