Wp/2298/2023 Of Krishnalal Kanaiyalal Bhatha v. The Assistant Director Of Income Tax
High Court
24 Feb 2023 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · karnataka_bng_old
Parties
Wp/2298/2023 Of Krishnalal Kanaiyalal Bhatha v. The Assistant Director Of Income Tax
Date of order
24 Feb 2023
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Wp/2298/2023 Of Krishnalal Kanaiyalal Bhatha v. The Assistant Director Of Income Tax, the High Court (2023) decided the matter.
Decision: As such, the petition stands disposed of quashing the intimation order dated 04.07.2022 [Annexure-D] directing the respondent to enable an opportunity to the petitioner to file a response once again and then proceed in accordance with law.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
Digitallysigned byNARASIMHAMURTHYVANAMALALocation:HIGHCOURT OFKARNATAKA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24 DAY OF FEBRUARY,2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO.2298 OF 2023(T-IT)
BETWEEN:
KRISHNALAL KANAIYALAL BHATHA S/O LATE KANAIYALAL BHATHA AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS, NO.68/2, VISHALAKSHI NILAYA, H.SIDDAIAH ROAD, BANGALORE-560 002
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. R.RAMA MURTHY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTRE, BANGALORE-560 500.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M. DILIP, ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04.07.2022 PASSED U/S 143(1) OF ACT IN NO.CPC/2122/A3/243763999(ANNEXURE-D).
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is aggrieved by the intimation order dated 04.07.2022 under Section 143[1][a] of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the petitioner’s grievance is premised in the contention that though response was filed on 05.04.2022, the intimation order is issued without considering the same. Sri. R. Rama Murthy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, relies upon Annexure-C, an extract of the portal, to contend that the response was indeed filed on 05.04.2022. Sri. Dilip M., the learned counsel for the respondent, is unable to controvert but he clarifies that the nature of response is not available from Annexure-C.
It is obvious that the petitioner’s response dated 05.04.2022 is not considered, and in that event, the impugned intimation order dated 04.07.2022 will have to be revisited after giving another opportunity to the petitioner to file his response. As such, the petition stands disposed of
quashing the intimation order dated 04.07.2022 [Annexure-D] directing the respondent to enable an opportunity to the petitioner to file a response once again and then proceed in accordance with law.
SD/- JUDGE
SA
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.
EaseValue