Allowed

Dr Madhukar G Angur v. the Commissioner of Income Tax

Karnataka HC4 Mar 2024WP/2957/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging an income tax assessment order, setting aside the order and remitting the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration after granting the petitioner an opportunity to submit complete details.

What did the court decide?

Impugned assessment order set aside and matter remitted to the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

Dr Madhukar G Angur Vs the Commissioner of Income Tax — Income Tax | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:9127 WP No. 2957 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 2957 OF 2023 (T-IT)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

DR MADHUKAR G ANGUR AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS S/O LATE GUDAPPA NAGUR FLAT NO 803 G- BLOCK, MANTRI ESPANA NEAR SAKRA WORLD HOSPITAL OUTER RING ROAD, KARIYAMMANA AGRAHARA BELLANDUR , BANGALORE – 560 103.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SRIVASTHAVA H K.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HMT BHAVAN, GST COMMISSIONERATE

¶12

BLOCK 59, HMT BHAVAN 3^RD FLOOR

¶13

BALLARI ROAD DENA BANK COLONY

¶14

GANGANAGAR 59 DENA BANK COLONY

¶15

ARMANE NAGAR

¶16

BENGALURU – 560 032.

¶17

Digitally signed by VANDANA S

¶18

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶19

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE (2) (4) HMT BHAVAN GST COMMISSIONERATE BLOCK 59 HMT BHAVAN

¶20

3^RD FLOOR BALLARI ROAD, DENA BANK COLONY GANGANAGAR 59 DENA BANK COLONY, RMANE NAGAR

¶21

BENGALURU – 560 032.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI.DILIP.M .,ADVOCATE)

¶24

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS DATED 31/12/2021 PASSED BY THE R-2 I.E., LD. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE (2)(4), BANGALORE, U/S 153 R.W.S. 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND ETC.

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:9127 WP No. 2957 of 2023

¶28

ORDER

¶29

In this petition, petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned assessment order at Annexure-B dated 31.12.2021 and for other reliefs.

¶30

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶31

counsel for respondents and perused the material on record.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that because of the litigation between the petitioner and the impleading applicant, in relation to the management of M/s. Alliance University, the petitioner could not submit full / complete response along with all documents to respondent No.2 who has proceeded to pass the impugned order, aggrieved by which, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. It is submitted that if one more opportunity is provided, the petitioner would submit a detailed response / reply along with all documents before respondent No.2 who may be directed to re-consider the claim of the petitioner, in accordance with law.

¶33

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:9127 WP No. 2957 of 2023

¶34

Per contra , learned counsel for respondents submits

¶35

that there is no merit in the petition and same is liable to be dismissed. It is also submitted that petitioner has preferred an appeal and as such, the question of entertaining the present petition before this Court would not arise in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶36

By way of reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner would unconditionally withdraw the appeal filed by him before the appellate authority.

¶37

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is placed on record.

¶38

Learned counsel for the impleading applicant submits that in the event this Court were to set-aside the impugned order and remit the matter back the matter to the second respondent for re-consideration afresh, all rival contentions between petitioner and impleading applicant are to be kept open to be decided in the appropriate proceedings.

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:9127 WP No. 2957 of 2023

¶41

8. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the

¶42

case and the specific assertion on part of the petitioner that his inability and omission to submit the detailed / complete / total reply along with all documents to respondent No.2 was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, without expressing any opinion on the merits / demerits of the rival contentions between the petitioner / respondents / impleading applicant and in order to provide one more opportunity in favour of the petitioner to submit the complete / total / detailed reply along with all documents, I deem it appropriate to adopt justice oriented approach and to set-aside the impugned assessment order at Annexure-B dated 31.12.2021 and remit the matter back to respondent No.2 for re-consideration afresh in accordance with law.

¶43

9. In the result, I pass the following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

(i) Petition is hereby allowed.

¶46

(ii) Impugned assessment order at Annexure-B

¶47

and all consequential orders, notices, etc., are hereby set aside.

¶48

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC:9127 WP No. 2957 of 2023

¶50

(iii) The matter is remitted back to second respondent for re-consideration afresh, consideration in accordance with law.

¶51

(iv) All rival contentions between petitioner / respondents / impleading applicants including issues / questions regarding jurisdiction, limitation etc., are kept

¶52

open and no opinion is expressed on the same.

¶53

SD/JUDGE

¶54

DHA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

Dr Madhukar G Angur v. the Commissioner of Income Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Madhukar G Angur v. the Commissioner 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

Sri. Venkateshappa Vs Sri. Obalaiah

K Ramachandra Reddy Vs L Channakeshava Reddy

Sri Chiranjeevi K Vs Lokesh Reddy

Sri .G. Nagaraja Vs the Regional Transport Officer

Smt. Srimathi Navada Vs Smt. v. Supriya

M/s. Mangalore Chemicals and Vs the Principal Commissioner of