Quashed

Smt Kalavathi Sattenahalli Rame Gowda Swamy v. the Assistant Director of Income Tax

Karnataka HC10 Feb 2023WP/2704/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court, while hearing a writ petition under Article 226, accepted the argument that the impugned intimation order dated 05.07.2022 was passed without considering the petitioner's response filed on 07.04.2022. Consequently, the order was quashed.

What did the court decide?

The intimation order dated 05.07.2022 was quashed, with a direction to enable the petitioner to file a response once again before proceeding in accordance with law.

Smt Kalavathi Sattenahalli Rame Gowda Swamy Vs the Assistant… — Income Tax | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 2704 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 2704 OF 2023 (T-IT)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT KALAVATHI SATTENAHALLI RAME GOWDA SWAMY D/O SRI N NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS NO 11, JAYANAGAR SHOPPING COMPLEX 4^TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE 560011.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. R. CHANDRASHEKAR AND SRI. KASHINATH KALMATH, SRI.RAMA MURTHY R.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by NARASIMHA MURTHY VANAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTRE BANGALORE 560500.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI.DILIP.M.,ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE INTIMATION ORDER DATED 05/07/2022 PASSED U/S.143(1) OF ACT IN NO.CPC/2122/A3/248043930 (ANNEXURE-D) TO THIS WP.

¶18

¶19

WP No. 2704 of 2023

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner is aggrieved by the intimation order dated 05.07.2022 under Section 143[1][a] of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the petitioner’s grievance is premised in the contention that though response was filed on 07.04.2022, the intimation order is issued without considering the same. Sri. R. Chandrashekar , the learned counsel for the petitioner, relies upon Annexure-C, an extract of the portal, to contend that the response was indeed filed on 07.04.2022. Sri. Dilip M., the learned counsel for the respondent, is unable to controvert but he also clarifies that the nature of response is not available from Annexure-C.

¶23

It is obvious to this Court that the petitioner’s response dated 07.04.2022 is not considered, and in that event, the impugned intimation order dated

¶24

¶25

WP No. 2704 of 2023

¶26

05.07.2022 will have to be revisited after giving another opportunity to the petitioner to file its response. As such, the petition stands disposed of quashing the intimation order dated 05.07.2022 [Annexure-D] directing the respondent to enable an opportunity to the petitioner to file a response once again and then proceed in accordance with law.

¶27

Sd/JUDGE

¶28

¶29

Ct:sr

Smt Kalavathi Sattenahalli Rame Gowda Swamy v. the Assistant Director of Income Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Kalavathi Sattenahalli Rame Gowda Swamy v. the Assistant Director of Income Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Shawar Pasha Vs the Superintendent

Aramanamada Biddappa Krishna Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre

Primary Agricultural Credit Co. Operative Society Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)

Suhel Khan Vs Assessment Unit

Jagadeesh Kumar P Vs the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited

Marinanjappa Shivananda Vs the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)