Allowed

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

Karnataka HC4 Mar 2024WP/5227/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an income tax order dated 28.08.2023 under Section 220(2A) of the Act, remitting the matter to the Revenue with the direction to reconsider it afresh after considering the petitioner's detailed submissions and the fact that funds were already available for adjustment.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 28.08.2023 was set aside and the matter remitted to the respondent for reconsideration afresh.

M/s. Mangalore Chemicals and Vs the Principal Commissioner of — Income Tax | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:8919 WP No. 5227 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 5227 OF 2024 (T-IT)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/s. MANGALORE CHEMICALS AND FERTILIZERS LTD., (A PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY) INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT OF 1956 NATURE OF BUSINESS: CHEMICALS AND FERTILIZERS U B TOWERS, LEVEL 11, UB CITY 24, VITTAL MALLYA ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS JOINT PRESIDENT SRI T M MURALIDHARAN AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS SON OF SRI T M NARASIMHAN (COMPANY PAN: AABCM3599G)

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI S PARTHA SARATHI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BENGALURU - 2 BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, 6^TH BLOCK NEAR KHB VILLAGE KORAMANGALA BENGALURU – 560 095.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI E I SANMATHI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI SUSHAL TIWARI, ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSITITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 220(2A) OF THE ACT DATED 28.8.23 IN DIN AND ORDER No.ITBA/COM/F/17/2023-24/1055502411(1) BY THE RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-0914 (ANNEXURE-V) AND ETC.,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:8919 WP No. 5227 of 2024

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

In this petition the petitioner seeks for the following

¶22

reliefs:

¶23

a. Issue Writ of Certiorari or a direction in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, quashing the order passed under Section 220(2A) of the Act dated 28.08.2023 in DIN & ORDER NO. ITBA/COM/17/2023-24/1055502411(1) by the Respondent for the assessment year 2008-09 (ANNEXURE –V);

¶24

b. Issue a Writ of Prohibition or a direction in the nature of Writ of Prohibition, restraining the Respondent from proceeding further in the matter of recovery of demand in pursuance of the order passed under Section 220(2) of the act dated 07.09.2017 in F.NO.C.4(1)(2)/AABCM3599G/2016-17/MCFL by the Respondent for the assessment year 2008-09 (ANNEXURE-P);

¶25

c. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or a direction in the nature

¶26

of Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent to waive the interest levied under 220(2A) of the Act by exercising the power conferred on him;

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:8919 WP No. 5227 of 2024

¶28

d. Pass such other order, direction or writ as this Hon’ble

¶29

Court deems fit, and

¶30

e. Direct the Respondent to award the costs of this Writ

¶31

Petition.

¶32

Heard learned counsel on both sides and perused the material on record.

¶33

In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for petitioner invited my attention to order the dated 12.08.2022 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 1767/2019 in order to contend that pursuant to the said order, the petitioner submitted detailed written submissions on 24.07.2023 putting forth various contentions and claims, none of which have been considered by the respondent while passing the impugned order which deserves to be set aside on this ground alone. In addition there to, learned counsel for petitioner also pointed out that the material on record clearly indicate that in the earlier proceedings including the order giving effect to the CIT(A) 4 Bengaluru, the money of the petitioner already available with the respondent has been adjusted and consequently question of invoking the provisions of Section 220(2A) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter for the sake of brevity

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:8919 WP No. 5227 of 2024

¶35

referred to as `the Act’) against the petitioner would not arise. It is submitted that money was already available when the demand was raised by the respondent against the petitioner and consequently, the question of invoking Section 220(2A) of the Act against the petitioner for the assessment year 2008-09 would not arise in the facts and circumstances of the instant case and said aspect of the matter has not been considered by the respondent in the impugned order which is vitiated on this ground also. It is therefore submitted that the impugned order passed by the respondent deserves to be set aside and the matter remitted back for reconsideration once again afresh in accordance with law.

¶36

Per contra learned counsel for the respondent – revenue would support that the impugned order and submit that there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶37

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, despite the petitioner filing detailed written submissions on 24.07.2023 pursuant to the remand order passed by this Court on 12.08.2022 in W.P. No. 1767/2019, the respondent has not considered or appreciated the various contentions urged in the

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:8919 WP No. 5227 of 2024

¶39

written submissions resulting in erroneous conclusion and warranting interference in the present petition.

¶40

So also, the respondent has not considered the material on record including the specific contention of the petitioner that his money was already with the respondent for the assessment year 2008-09 and as such the same having already sought to be appropriated/adjusted, the question of invoking Section 220(2A) of the Act against the petitioner would not arise is yet another circumstance that would vitiate the impugned order. Under these circumstances, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the respondent for reconsideration afresh once again in accordance with law by considering and appreciating all the contentions raised by the petitioner.

¶41

In the result, the following;

¶42

O R D E R

¶43

i. Petition is hereby allowed.

¶44

ii. The impugned order dated 28.08.2023 – Annexure V is hereby set aside.

¶45

iii. The matter is remitted back to the respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law bearing in

¶46

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:8919 WP No. 5227 of 2024

¶47

mind the observations made in this order and the various

¶48

submissions and contentions put forth by the petitioner.

¶49

iv. Liberty is also reserved in favour of the petitioner to file additional submissions/pleadings etc., which shall be considered by the respondent and shall proceed further in accordance with law after providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

LRS

¶52

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

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

Dr Madhukar G Angur Vs the Commissioner of Income Tax

Smt. Srimathi Navada Vs Smt. v. Supriya