Wp/2675/2025 Of M/S. K. R. Prasad v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27 DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR -WRIT PETITION NO. 2675 OF 2025 (TIT) BETWEEN: M/S. K. R. PRASAD, NO. 44/1, A & B BHARAT APARTMENTS, RACE COURSE ROAD, FAIRFIELD LAYOUT, BENGALURU – 560 001, KARNATAKA, PAN: REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SHRI. ASHOK A. KULKARNI, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS (BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3) - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13413 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH BY AN ORDER, DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI THE INTIMATION U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT BEARING NO. CPC/1516/A5/1525820932 DATED 24.02.2016 FOR THE AY 2015-16 IN ANNEXURE-D GENERATED BY THE 3 RESPONDENT AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM:HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs: “A. Quash by an order, writ or direction in the nature of certiorari the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act bearing No.CPC/1516/A5/1525820932 dated 24.02.2016 for the AY:2015-16 in Annexure-“D” generated by the 3[rd]Respondent. B. Quash by an order, writ or direction in the nature of certiorari the order u/s. 264 of the Act bearing No.ITBA/REV/F/REV7/2024-25/10698201601(1) dated 21.10.2024 for AY: 2015-16 in Annexure-“E” passed by the 1[st] Respondent. C. Grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may think fit in the interest of justice and equity. 2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that pursuant to the petitioner filing Income tax returns for the - 3 - Assessment Year 2015-16 on 28.09.2015, the respondents said to have issued an Intimation dated 24.02.2016 to the petitioner who contends that he did not receive the same at that time. It is contended that it is only subsequently when he received an email on 16.09.2022 that the petitioner learnt that there was an outstanding tax demand of Rs.1,62,290/- raised by the respondents, aggrieved by which, the petitioner filed a revision petition under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which came to be dismissed by the Revisional authority as barred by limitation vide impugned order dated 21.10.2024 and as such, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 4. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the only reason for dismissal of the revision petition is that the same was barred by limitation being beyond the prescribed period of one year as contemplated under Section 264(3) of the I.T.Act. However, the revisional authority failed to consider and appreciate the proviso to Section 264(3) which contemplates that the delay in filing the revision petition can be condoned in the event there was sufficient cause made out by the petitioner; in the instant case, the material on record clearly establishes that the Intimation dated 24.02.2016 was not received by the petitioner who was neither communicated with the same nor was aware or had knowledge about the intimation in any other manner and consequently, by adopting a justice oriented approach and in order to enable the petitioner to put forth all his contentions on merits without reference to limitation, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the revisional authority for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. 5. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) Petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned order at Annexure-E dated 21.10.2024 passed by the 1[st] respondent is hereby set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted back to the Revisional Authority for 5. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) Petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned order at Annexure-E dated 21.10.2024 passed by the 1[st] respondent is hereby set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted back to the Revisional Authority for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law without reference to limitation, which stands answered/concluded in favour of the petitioner by virtue of this order. NC: 2025:KHC:13413 WP No. 2675 of 2025 (iv) The delay in filing revision petition stands condoned. (v) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit additional pleadings, documents, etc., before the Revisional authority, which shall consider the same and proceed further in accordance with law. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE BMC/SRL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 105