Case LawHigh Court › Crl.p/100394/2020 Of Nagaraj Chamaraj Hu...

Crl.p/100394/2020 Of Nagaraj Chamaraj Hundekar v. Income Tax Department

High Court 20 Jul 2023 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · karhcdharwad
Parties
Crl.p/100394/2020 Of Nagaraj Chamaraj Hundekar v. Income Tax Department
Date of order
20 Jul 2023
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Crl.p/100394/2020 Of Nagaraj Chamaraj Hundekar v. Income Tax Department, the High Court (2023) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Decision: There is no justification in granting further time as|the Court is required to take up second appeals in theafternoon session. | Hence, the petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

The order — as passed by the High Court

CHANDRASHEKARLAXMANKATTIMANI Digitally signed byCHANDRASHEKARLAXMANKATTIMANIDate: 2023.07.2412:44:34 -0700 -1-NC: 2023:KHC-D: 759CRL.P No. 100386 of 2020C/W CRL.P No. 100387 of 2020, CRL.P No.100394 of 2020, CRL.P No. 100395 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD.BENCH DATED THIS THE 20 DAY OF JULY, 2023 BEFORE. THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDAiCRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100386 OF 2020 (482+ C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100387 OF 2020CRIMINAL PETLITION NQ, 100394 OF 202CRIMINAL PETLITION NQ, 100395 OF 202 IN CRL.P.NO.100386 OF 2020 BETWEEN: 1.JAYAKUMAR APPASAHEB PATILAGE. 48 YEARS,AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. MEDICAL PRACTITIONER,PATIL SPECIALITY DENTAL CLINIC, OPP. GOVT. PRE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE,GOKAK-591307, DIST. BELAGAVI. 2SURESH G. SHOLAPURMATH.AGE. 67 YEARS,OCC. CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, COURT ROAD, GOKAK,_DIST. BELAGAVI-591 30 PETITIONERS| (BY SRI. SANGRAM S KULKARNI |AND SHARAD M PATIL, ADVOCATES) AND: 1.INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT.REP. BY ITS INCOME TAX OFFICER, SHRI.LANGAD KUMAR, AGE. 41 YEARS,INCOME TAX OFFICER,|WARD-I, GOKAK-591307 (BY SRI. Y.V. RAVIRAJ, ADVOCATE) RESPONDENT THISCRIMINAL|PETITION[ISFILED|U/SEC.482|OF|CR.P.C.,PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT IN CCNO.687/2015|ASPERANNEXURE-APENDINGBEFORE|THE|PRINCIPAL CJ AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, GOKAKFOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 276C AND 27/7 OFINCOME TAX ACT, 1961, IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS CONCERNED. IN CRL.P. NO 100387 OF 2020 BETWEEN 1. ANILKUMAR B. PATIL| AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, M/S. VIVEK INDUSTRIES,|OPP J.G. HOSPITAL, CHIKODI ROAD, GHATAPRBHA-591306TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI. 2. SURESH G. SHOLAPURMATHAGE. 67 YEARS,|OCC. CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, COURT ROAD, GOKAK,DIST. BELAGAVI-591 30/ (BY SRI. SANGRAM S KULKARNI |AND SHARAD M PATIL, ADVOCATES) ... PETITIONERS AND 1. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT| REP. BY ITS INCOME TAX OFFICER, -3-NC: 2023:KHC-D: 759CRL.P No. 100386 of 2020C/W CRL.P No. 100387 of 2020, CRL.P No.100394 of 2020, CRL.P No. 100395 of 2020 SHRI.ANGAD KUMAR,AGE. 41 YEARS,INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-I, GOKAK-591307 (BY SRI.Y.V.RAVIRAJ, ADVOCATE) . RESPONDENT THIS.CRIMINAL|PETITIONinFILED|U/SEC.482|OF.CR.P.C.,PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT IN CCNO.688/2015|AS-PERANNEXURE-APENDING)BEFORE|THE|PRINCIPAL CJ AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, GOKAK-FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 2/6C AND 2/77 OFINCOME TAX ACT, 1961, IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS CONCERNED. IN CRL.P. NO 100394 OF 2020 BEIWEEN 1. NAGARAJ CHAMARA) HUNDEKARAGE. 53 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O BHARATESH KRISHI SEVA KENDRA,TPC NO.1193, MAIN ROAD, GOKAK,|TQ. GOKAK-591307DIST. BELAGAVI. 2. SURESH G. SHOLAPURMATHAGE. 67 YEARS,OCC. CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, COURT ROAD, GOKAK,DIST. BELAGAVI-59130/7 (BY SRI. SANGRAM S KULKARNI |AND SHARAD M PATIL, ADVOCATES) ...PETITIONERS AND 1. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT|REP. BY ITS INCOME TAX OFFICER,SHRIL.ANGAD KUMAR,AGE. 41 YEARS, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-I, GOKAK-591307 (BY SRI.Y.V.RAVIRAJ, ADVOCATE) . RESPONDENT -4.-NC: 2023:KHC-D: 759CRL.P No. 100386 of 2020C/W CRL.P No. 100387 of 2020, CRL.P No.100394 of 2020, CRL.P No. 100395 of 2020 THIS.CRIMINAL|PETITIONIS.FILED|U/SEC.482|OF.CR.P.C.,PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT IN CCNO.709/2015|ASPERANNEXURE-APENDINGBEFORE|THE|PRINCIPAL CJ AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, GOKAK-FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 2/6C AND 2/77 OFINCOME TAX ACT, 1961, IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS CONCERNED. CRL.P NO 100395 OF 2020 BETWEEN 1, OTMAL BABULAL RATHOD_>AGE. 69 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O CTS NO.3128, RAVIWAR PETH, GOKAK,TQ. GOKAK-591307, DIST. BELAGAVI. 2. SURESH G. SHOLAPURMATHAGE. 67 YEARS,OCC. CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT,COURT ROAD, GOKAK-591307DIST. BELAGAVI. (BY SRI. SANGRAM S KULKARNI |AND SHARAD M PATIL, ADVOCATES)| ... PETITIONERS AND THIS.CRIMINAL|PETITIONIS.FILED|U/SEC.482|OF.CR.P.C.,PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT IN CCNO.709/2015|ASPERANNEXURE-APENDINGBEFORE|THE|PRINCIPAL CJ AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, GOKAK-FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 2/6C AND 2/77 OFINCOME TAX ACT, 1961, IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS CONCERNED. CRL.P NO 100395 OF 2020 BETWEEN 1, OTMAL BABULAL RATHOD_>AGE. 69 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O CTS NO.3128, RAVIWAR PETH, GOKAK,TQ. GOKAK-591307, DIST. BELAGAVI. 2. SURESH G. SHOLAPURMATHAGE. 67 YEARS,OCC. CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT,COURT ROAD, GOKAK-591307DIST. BELAGAVI. (BY SRI. SANGRAM S KULKARNI |AND SHARAD M PATIL, ADVOCATES)| ... PETITIONERS AND 1. INCOME TAXK DEPARTMENT|REP. BY ITS INCOME TAX OFFICER,SHRI.LANGAD KUMAR,AGE. 41 YEARS, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-I, GOKAK-591307. RESPONDENT (BY SRI.Y.V.RAVIRAJ, ADVOCATE) THIS.CRIMINAL|PETITIONinFILED|U/SEC.482|OF.CR.P.C.,PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT IN CCNO.715/2015|ASPERANNEXURE-APENDINGBEFORE|THE|PRINCIPAL CJ AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, GOKAK-FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 2/6C AND 2/77 OFINCOME TAX ACT, 1961, IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS CONCERNED. -5- NC: 2023:KHC-D: 759CRL.P No. 100386 of 2020C/W CRL.P No. 100387 of 2020, CRL.P No.100394 of 2020, CRL.P No. 100395 of 2020 THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Case|called|out.None.present|On)behalfofpetitioners. Even on the previous occasion, tnere was no.representation on behalf of petitioners. | Even today, there was no representation in the.morning session. When the case is called at 1.1/7 p.m.,Sri.Snarad Magadum seeks time. There is no justification in granting further time as|the Court is required to take up second appeals in theafternoon session. | Hence, the petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/-|JUDGE| SH. List No.: 2 SI No.: 15
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ Get help with an income-tax notice → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan