Wp/14575/2017 Of Ghanshyam Gupta v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22 DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE #WRIT PETITION NO.14575 OF 2017 (TIT) BETWEEN: GHANSHYAM GUPIA,SINCHKH DBECBASEREPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIR, MR.SAI ABHISHEK GUPTA,414, PARAS, MANYATHA APPT., 102, RACHENA HALLI MAIN ROAD,MANYATA THCH PARKBACK GATE NO.95,BANGALORE NORTH,DR.SHIVARAMAKARANTH NAGAR,| BANGALORE — 560 77/7. _ PRTITIONBR (BY SRI. K. MALLAHA RAO & |ORI. ARVINDA S.N., ADVOCATES) AND: 1.|CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE — 560 OO1. «|ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - I, BANGALORE — 560 046. ~_ RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.,) THIS WRIT PETITION [IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &ID OF THERE CONSTITUIION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECIRESPONDENT TO RBFUND THR AMOUNT WITH INTBRBESTFROM THR DATR OF SBIZURB OF THE SAME TO THR LBEGALHBIR OF THR PRHTITIONER. THIS WRIT PEIITTION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARYHEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE|KOLLOWING: ORDER Mr. K. Mallaha Rao, learned Counsel for thepetitioner. Mr. K.V. Aravind, learned Counsel for therespondents. | The petition is admitted for hearing. With theconsent of learned Counsel for the parties, the matter isheard finally. | ?)In this writ petition, petitioner,|inter alta, seeks for a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents. to refund the amount with interest from the date otfseizure of the same to the legal heir of the petitioner. 3.InorderTOappreciatethepetitioner’serievance, few facts under mentioned which are statedintra. 4.Late Ghanshyam Gupta was a regularassessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961 |hereinaiterreferred to as ‘Act’, for short]. On 19.12.1997, a searchwas conducted by the Income Tax Department at thepremises of Mr. Rakesh Kapadia and Mr. SureshKapadia who were the Proprietors of Malva SilkEmporium, Bengaluru. During the search period, anamount of Rs.9 lakhs was found with one Mr. Niranjanwho is said to be custodian of the amount on behalf otthe petitioner. On 19.03.1998, the petitioner sent aletter to the concerned Authority and sought refund ofthe amount of Rs.9 lakhs by accepting ownership of theaforesaid amount. Rakesh Kapadia and Suresh Kapadia were also assessed under Section 158BC of theAct, wherein an amount of Rs.9 lakhs for which)ownership is claimed by the assessee is assessed by theIncome Tax Authority in their names. The RespondentNo.2 issued a notice under Section 158BC ot the Act to|the petitioner. The Assessing Authority made certainadditions on the basis of protective assessment undersection l1Oo&8BCF/2| of the Act and levied protectipenalty of Rs.5,40,000/- vide Order dated 19.01.2014. 5.Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed anappealbeforetheCommissioneroT|IncomeTax|[Appeals], Bangalore, for block period 1988-89 to 1998-99. The Tribunal, by order dated 11.12.2012 directedthe Assessing Authority to cancel the penalty order. —Thereupon,thepetitioner’sfather.submitted|arepresentation to the Respondent No.2 requesting himto adjust tax arrears to the tune of Rs.5,40,000/- out ofRs.9,00,000/- and to refund the remaining amount of Rs.3,60,000/- along with interest. However, theRespondent No.2 did not pass any order on theapplication of the father of the petitioner. In theaforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner hasapproached this Court. 6.When the matter is taken up today, learnedCounsel for the petitioner submitted that the writpetition be disposed of with the direction to theRespondent No.2 to pass appropriate order on theapplication which is pending consideration before himseeking refund of the amount, in accordance with law,by a speaking order. Learned Counsel for the revenuehas fairly not opposed the prayer. Rs.3,60,000/- along with interest. However, theRespondent No.2 did not pass any order on theapplication of the father of the petitioner. In theaforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner hasapproached this Court. 6.When the matter is taken up today, learnedCounsel for the petitioner submitted that the writpetition be disposed of with the direction to theRespondent No.2 to pass appropriate order on theapplication which is pending consideration before himseeking refund of the amount, in accordance with law,by a speaking order. Learned Counsel for the revenuehas fairly not opposed the prayer. In view of the aforesaid submissions and in the|facts of the case, writ petition is disposed of with thedirection to the Respondent No.2 to decide theapplication pending before it seeking refund of theamount by a speaking order in accordance with law ?97/92�-�81,903�06�7/,11�;027/5�6,0;�7/1�3-71�06�,1=1987� 06�=1,796913�=08>�06�7/1�0,31,�8-5513�703->�� ��&'#� ���������������������������������������������������������� ��JK�