V.ramakrishna v. The Income Tax Officer And Anr

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU. DATED THIS THE 28 DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI &WRIT PETITION No.10466 OF 2016 (TIT) BETWEEN: V.RAMAKRISHNA|SINCHKH DBECBASBD REPRESENTBY WIFE, SMT.BHAGYAMMAAGED ABOUT 50 YBARS|NO.23, NEAR MARAMMA TEMPLEKATHRIGUPPA VILLAGEBSK 3 STAGE.BANGALORE — 560 O50... PRHTITIONER (BY:MR.KASHINATH KALMATH, ADVOCATE FOR)MR.SRI R.RAMA MURTHY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1.THE INCOME TAX OFFICERWARD - 4 (4), KORAMANGALABMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROADKORAMANGALA>BANGALORE — 560 095.WARD - 4 (4), KORAMANGALABMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROADKORAMANGALA>BANGALORE — 560 095. oD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-7, |KORAMANGALA BMTC BUILDINGKORAMANGALA BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALABANGALORE — 560 095. |.~ RESPONDENTSBANGALORE — 560 095. |.~ RESPONDENTS (BY:MR.ARAVIND K.V., ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE|CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE|DATEBED 2.1.9013 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THR AC Date of Order 28-11-2017 W.P.No.10466/2016 V.Ramakrishna Vs. The Income Tax Officer and Anr. (ANNEXURE-A) BY THE R1 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR |2007-08 IN THERE NAME OF V.RAMAKRISHNA WHO PASSEAWAY ON 14.59.2008 AS [LLEGAL AND IMPROPER SINCE NOSUCH NOTICK CAN BRK ISSUBD ON DBAD PRRSON AND TOOQUASH THE ORDER OF RE-ASSESSMENT DATED 206.3.201MADE BY JHE R1 FOR THER ASSHKHSSMENT YEBKAR 200(ANNEXURE-B) AS WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF LAW AND TO.QUASH THE ORDER OF THE R2 DATED 19.1.2016 (ANNEXURE-D) AS OPPOSED TO LAW AND ETC. THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR PRBLIMINARY HEARING THIS|DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- ORDER Mr.Kashinath Kalmath,Advocate for Mr.Ramamurthy R., Advovcate for PetitionerMr.Aravind K.V.Advocate for Respondents The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition aggrieved by the orderAnnexure-Ddated |19.11.201passed bythe Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) rejecting theAppeal filed by the petitioner against an order passedunder|Section 143(3)oft theIncome Tax Act, 1961(‘Act’) read withSection 147ot the Act on.26.3.2014for the Assessment Year|2007-2008on the ground ofdelay in filing the appeal. OoThe alleged delay caused in the filing of the Appeal against the reassessment order was 147 days V.Ramakrishna Vs. The Income Tax Officer and Anr. and for which the reasons|inter aliagiven by the|petitioner was the death of the assessee himself. | 3.Having heard the learned counsels for theparties, this Court is satisfied that the rejection of theAppeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) onthe ground of delay is not justified and the delay inthese circumstances deserved to be condoned. Since it/was a regular first appellate remedy filed by thepetitioner, the First Appellate Authority should havedecided the Appeal on merits instead of giving technicalreasons for the rejection of the Appeal. 4This Writ Petition is accordingly allowed andsetting aside the impugned orderAnnexure-Ddated.19.1.2016, the matter is. restored to the file. oCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and he isdirected to decide the Appeal on merits and the delay infiling the Appeal shall stand condoned. Date of Order 28-11-2017 W.P.No.10466/2016 V.Ramakrishna Vs. The Income Tax Officer and Anr. 4/4 5The petitioner-assessee may appear betore the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in the first instance on14.12.2017and a period of four months is allowed to the said Authority to pass fresh orders inaccordance with law. No order as to costs. ViGR Sd/-.JUDGE