G.Narayana Reddy vs The Commissisoner of Income Tax… | Karnataka High Court 2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2015

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA

WRIT PETITION NO.15384/2014 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

G.NARAYANA REDDY S/O GOVIDA REDDY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS NO. 908, SRI RENUKA LAKSHI KRUPA, BANSAWADI, OMBR LAYOUT 80 FEET ROAD BANGALORE-560003 ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. B L SANJEEVM, ADV.)

AND:

THE COMMISSISONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) IT DEPARTMENT QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE-560001

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 (2) QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE-560001

TAX RECOVERYD OFFICER CENTRAL RANGE-1 4TH FLOOR, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS ANNEXE QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE-560001 ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. E I SANMATHI, ADV. FOR R1 TO 3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS; QUASH NOTICE DT.24.2.2014 ISSUED BY THE R-3 VIDE ANNX-A AND DIRECT THE R-1 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS OF THE PETITIONER DT.20.3.2014 & 24.3.2014 MADE U/S 220 (2A) OF THE ACT (VIDE ANNX-D & F) AFTER GIVING HIM AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IN THE MATTER.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

The petitioner is before this Court assailing the auction notice dated 24.02.2014 and is also seeking that the representations dated 20.03.2014 and 24.03.2014 made under Section 220 (2A) of the Income Tax Act be considered after providing opportunity to the petitioner.

This Court at the first instance while directing notice had stayed the sale notice dated 24.02.2014 vide Annexure-A. In that view, the auction which was proposed on 27.03.2014 has not taken place and as such, the sale notice as issued does not subsist at this juncture.

Insofar as the prayer seeking consideration of the representations, learned counsel for the respondents brings to the notice of this Court the communications dated 21.03.2014 and 25.03.2014 wherein the petitioner has been informed that his request for waiver of interest cannot be considered.

If that be the so, the representations made by the petitioner has been considered and disposed of. If at all the petitioner has any grievance with regard to such order passed against him, it would be open for the petitioner to assail the same in accordance with law.

Reserving such liberty, the petition stands disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

hrp/bms

G.NARAYANA REDDY vs. THE COMMISSISONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)