Wp/13157/2024 Of South India Steel Industries Ltd v. Additional /Joint /Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax/Income Tax Officer
High Court
03 Jul 2024 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · karnataka_bng_old
Parties
Wp/13157/2024 Of South India Steel Industries Ltd v. Additional /Joint /Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax/Income Tax Officer
Date of order
03 Jul 2024
Assessment year(s)
2018-19
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Wp/13157/2024 Of South India Steel Industries Ltd v. Additional /Joint /Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax/Income Tax Officer, the High Court (2024) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
Digitallysigned byVIJAYA PLocation:HIGH COURTOFKARNATAKA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3 DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV -WRIT PETITION NO. 13157 OF 2024 (TIT)
BETWEEN:
1. SOUTH INDIA STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.54/28, K S GARDEN NO.54/28, K S GARDEN
LALBAGH ROAD, 4 CROSS, BANGALORE - 560 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR PANKAJ GARG
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. ADDITIONAL /JOINT /DEPUTY/ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/
INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, ASSESSMENT UNIT ROOM NO 401, II FLOOR, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, ASSESSMENT UNIT ROOM NO 401, II FLOOR,
E-RAMP, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM
DELHI - 110 003
2. INCOME TAX OFFICER
WARD 7(2)(1) BANGALORE
80 FT ROAD, BMTC BUILDING,
KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU - 560 095
3. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 80 FEET ROAD, BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 095 80 FEET ROAD, BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 095
4. STATE OF KARNATAKA TO HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT MS BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001 TO HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT MS BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
5. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, DEVELOPMENT BOARD NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M. DILIP, JUNIOR STANDING COUNSEL)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD. 29.03.2023 BEARING NO. ITBA/REV/F/REV5/2022-23/1051549581(1) (ANNEXURE-E) PASSED BY THE R-3 UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19 AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner has sought for setting aside of the order at Annexure-E whereby the Revisional Authority in exercise of the power under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has set aside the order of the assessing authority
insofar as the exemption extended on the compensation received.
2.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the Revisional Authority is in violation of the principles of natural justice insofar as the notice was issued on 28.03.2023 to appear by 12.04.2023 at 11.00 a.m. and take stand insofar as the proceedings of limited scrutiny assessment, while without waiting for 12.04.2023, on 29.03.2023 itself suo motu revision has been disposed off.
3.Taking note of the admitted facts, once notice was given extending time till 12.04.2023, question of closing the revision proceedings on 29.03.2023 would be in violation of the time prescribed in the notice at Annexure-D and accordingly the order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice prejudicing the right of the petitioner to put forth their case before the Revisional Authority in light of the benefit of exemption having been extended to the petitioner in the assessment proceedings.
Insofar as the merits of the matter, needless to state that though contentions have been advanced on both sides, that is a matter that requires reconsideration and once the petitioner is permitted to put forth their case, the Authority would be in a better position to appreciate the contentions and arrive at a conclusion in accordance with law.
4.Accordingly, the orders at Annexures-E and H are set aside and the matter is remitted to the Revisional Authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law. Contentions of both sides are kept open.
5.Petition is disposed off.
Sd/- JUDGE
VP
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.