What did the High Court hold?

The High Court agreed with the Revenue's contention and directed the Deputy Commissioner to consider the assessee's cases for the assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06 afresh. The assessee undertook to appear before the Deputy Commissioner for this purpose.

The Revenue appealed against a High Court order that quashed an earlier order and directed the assessee to approach the Deputy Commissioner for a fresh decision. The Revenue argued that the matter should have been remanded to the Deputy Commissioner for a fresh decision on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the High Court order correctly quashed the Deputy Commissioner's order, and if the matter should be remanded for fresh consideration on merits.

DCIT vs M/S Trilogy E Business | Karnataka High Court 2015

- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015 PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE VINEET SARAN

AND

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA

WRIT APPEAL NOS. 18020/ 2011 & 838/2013

BETWEEN:

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-12(4) RASHTROTHANA BHAVAN NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE – 1.

... APPELLANT

(BY K. V. ARAVIND, ADV.)

AND:

M/S. TRILOGY E BUSINESS SOFTWARE INDIA PVT. LTD. No.97, 4TH FLOOR, PATTON HOUSE – 2 KORAMANGALA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE 6TH BLOCK, 4TH B CROSS BANGALORE – 560095 REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. ABHISHEK GUPTA S/O. OMPRAKASH GUPTA AGED 35 YEARS

… RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SHARATH, ADV. FOR SRI. K. K. CHYTHANYA, ADV.)

THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION Nos.35640- 641/2010 DATED 4/3/2011.

- 2 - THESE WRIT APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, VINEET SARAN J. DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

These writ appeals are filed by the revenue challenging the judgment and order dated 04.03.2011 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.Nos.35640-641/2010, whereby the order of the respondent for the Assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06 has been quashed with a direction to the assessee-writ petitioner to approach the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the writ Court and further, the Deputy Commissioner has been directed to consider the grievance in accordance with law.

We have heard Sri.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel appearing for the revenue as well as Sri.Sharath, learned counsel holding brief of Sri.K.K.Chaithanya, learned counsel on behalf of the respondent-assessee and perused the records.

- 3 -

Sri.Aravind, learned counsel has not argued the matter on merits, but has submitted that the main grievance of the appellant is that after quashing the order of the Deputy Commissioner as per the impugned order, it is the assessee who has to approach the Deputy Commissioner for fresh decision, and according to the learned counsel, the cases relating to the Assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06, ought to have been remanded to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh decision on merits and in accordance with law.

Learned counsel for the respondent-assessee also agrees that the entire matter may be decided afresh by the Deputy Commissioner.

Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of this case, we dispose of these appeals with a direction that the Deputy Commissioner/Assessing Officer shall consider the cases of the assessee relating to the Assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06 afresh and in

- 4 - accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. The learned counsel for respondent-assessee undertakes that the assessee shall appear before the Appellant- Deputy Commissioner on 15.12.2015 at 11 a.m. and on appearance of the assessee before the Deputy Commissioner, appropriate orders shall be passed on the said date or on other subsequent date fixed for hearing, after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

With the aforesaid observations/directions, these appeals stands disposed of.

Sd/- JUDGE

Srl

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S TRILOGY E BUSINESS

What did the High Court hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments