J MANJUNATH (HUF) vs. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP/3714/2016HC KarnatakaKAHC01001282201601 August 2017Bench: VINEET KOTHARI4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax to decide the pending revision petition expeditiously, preferably within three months. The petitioner was asked to appear before the authority on August 10, 2017.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, J. Manjunath (HUF), filed a revision petition under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on June 22, 2009. The grievance is that the concerned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has failed to decide this petition for the Assessment Year 2006-07.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the delay in deciding a revision petition filed under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act. The court's intervention was sought to direct the authority to pass an order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 264

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1/4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 01st DAY OF AUGUST 2017

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI

WRIT PETITION No.3714/2016 (T-IT)

BETWEEN:

J. MANJUNATH (HUF) REP. BY ITS KARTHA SRI. J. MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS #260/1-22, SRI. NANJUNADESHWARA NILAYA 6TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN, VENKATAPURA EXTENSION KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560 034.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. G. VENKATESH, ADV. FOR SRI. A. SHANKAR, ADV.)

AND:

1.

THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BENGALURU-1, C.R. BUILDINGS QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.

2.

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL-KARNATAKA, C.R. BUILDINGS QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

3.

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BENGALURU-4, C.R. BUILDINGS QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

4.

THE TAX RECOVERY OFFICER-4 GROUND FLOOR, UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE MISSION ROAD, BANGALORE-560 027.

2/4

5.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 4(3)(1), KENDRIYA SADAN BUILDING KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560 034.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, ADV.)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT No.3 TO HEAR AND PASS AN APPROPRIATE ORDER IN RESPECT OF THE PETITION DATED 22-06-2009 FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 264 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (ANNEXURE-A) IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 & ETC.

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

ORDER

Mr. G. Venkatesh, for Mr. A. Shankar, Advs. for Petitioner Mr. Jeevan J. Neeralgi, Adv. for Respondents

1.

The only grievance raised in the present writ petition is that the 3rd Respondent-Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Bangalore, has failed to decide the Revision Petition filed under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2006-07 filed by the assessee on 22.06.2009.

3/4

2.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that despite lapse of considerable period after the said date, since the 3rd Respondent has not taken up the said Revision Petition for hearing, the present writ petition is filed.

3.

The learned counsel for the Respondents- Department Mr.Jeevan J.Neeralgi is requested to take notice and a copy of the writ petition has been supplied to him.

4.

After hearing the learned counsels, this Court is of the opinion that the present writ petition deserves to be disposed of, with a direction to the 3rd Respondent- Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Bangalore, to decide the said pending Revision Petition expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from today. The petitioner may appear before the said Authority in the first instance on 10.08.2017.

4/4

5.

With these observations, the petition is disposed of. No costs.

Sd/- JUDGE

Srl.

More judgments on Section 264

All 338 judgments and leading authorities on Section 264 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →