Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH 2017
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN
WRIT PETITION Nos.51105-51107/2016 (T-IT)
BETWEEN :
E4E BUSINESS SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, 5TH FLOOR, VAKIL SQUARE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE-560029, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, MS. AWANTI AGARWALA.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI K. P. KUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI SURYANARAYANA T., ADV.)
AND:
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE 2(1)(2), ROOM NO.218, II FLOOR, BMTC DEPOT, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560095.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 VII FLOOR, BMTC DEPOT, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560095.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K. V. ARAVIND, ADV.)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 8.8.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-M ISSUED BY THE
2 RESPONDENT NO-1 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, TO THE EXTENT THE WHOLE AMOUNT OF REFUND THEREUNDER IS ADJUSTED AGAINST THE OUTSTANDING DEMAND FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-2012 ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING :
O R D E R
A memo has been filed by the petitioner for dismissing the present writ petition as having become infructuous as the appeal filed by the petitioner has already been allowed by the learned Tribunal.
Therefore, this writ petition is hereby dismissed as infructuous. 3. Mr. K. V. Aravind, the learned counsel for respondents submits that in the order dated 22.11.2016, this Court has made certain prima-facie observation against the working of the assessing authority.
Although the said observation are merely prima-facie in nature, the learned counsel expresses the apprehension that nonetheless, such observations may be used to embarrass the Assessing Authority in the course of his/her service. Therefore, he requests that the observation,
3 so made, should be declared to have been deleted from the said order. 5. Since the Assessing Officer has an apprehension that the observation made by this Court may endanger his/her service career, the observations which were made by this Court by order dated 22.11.2016, in Page No.4, are hereby deleted.
Sd/-
JUDGE Np/-