The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging an order under Section 179 of the Income Tax Act on the ground that an alternative and efficacious remedy exists under Section 264 of the Act. The court reserved liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:41951 WP No. 15198 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.15198 OF 2023 (T-IT)
BETWEEN:
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI B. MURALIDHAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by CHAITHANYA K Location: High Court of Karnataka
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M. DILIP, ADVOCATE FOR R.1; NOTICE TO R.2 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 06.10.2023.)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE ORDER DATED 29.03.2023 BEARING DIN AND LETTER NO. ITBA/COM/F/17/2022-23/1051587111(1) ISSUED U/S.179 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AT ANNEXURE-Q, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1, ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
ORAL ORDER
the Director of an assessee Company - M/s.A and G Project and Technologies Limited. The case of the petitioner is that he was not the Director of the said Company during the relevant period and the said order has been passed erroneously.
NC: 2024:KHC:41951 WP No. 15198 of 2023
"Revision of other orders.
264. (1) In the case of any order other than an order to which section 263 applies passed by an authority subordinate to him, the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, either of his own motion or on an application by the assessee for revision, call for the record of any proceeding under this Act in which any such order has been passed and may make such inquiry or cause such inquiry to be made and, subject to the provisions of this Act, may pass such order thereon, not being an order prejudicial to the assessee, as he thinks fit.”
Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE
VMB
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy to challenge the order under Section 179 of the Income Tax Act?
Whether the writ petition is maintainable when a revision remedy is available under Section 264 of the Act?
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Mr. B Muralidhar
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Registrar of Companies
M.I.Arun
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
