Wp/4561/2016 Of M/S Spences Hotels Pvt Ltd v. Income Tax Officer

IN THR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22 DAY OF MARCH, 2016 BEFORE| THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY| "WRIT PETITION NO.4561 OF 2016 (TIT) Between: M/s. Spences Hotels Pvt. Ltd.,No.965/8, 8[%2]Main,HAL II Stage, Indiranagar, Bengaluru — 560 038.(Represented by itsManaging Director,|Mr. Anand Johar) ...Petitioner| (By Shri.K.R. Prasad &Shri. AsShok.A. Kulkarni, Advs.) | And: 1.|Income Tax Officer,Circle — 6(1) (2),9[60]Floor, BMTC Building,80 ft. Road, Koramangala,Bengaluru — 560 034.Circle — 6(1) (2),9[60]Floor, BMTC Building,80 ft. Road, Koramangala,Bengaluru — 560 034.2 |Commissioner of Income Tax,Bengaluru -— 6,9[60]Floor, BMTC Building,80 fit. Road, Koramangala,Bengaluru -— 6,9[60]Floor, BMTC Building,80 fit. Road, Koramangala, Bengaluru — 960 034. ...Respondents| (By Shri.K.V. Aravind, Adv.) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227|of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ orotherwise to the R-1 having jurisdiction over the petitionerat present to refund the amount of Rs.12,50,000/- alongwith due interest thereon until the date of refund and etc., This Petition coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B |Group this day, the Court made the following:- ORD ER The petitioner is before this Court with a limited|prayer. Hence the petition is considered at the stage ofpreliminary hearing in “B’ group. | 2 |The learned counsel for the respondent is heard. |The petitioner is said to have paid a sum of Rs.12,50,000/-as per the instructions of the Apex Court before whichspecial Leave Petition was pending for the assessment yearas a pre condition during the pendency of the Civil appeal. |The petitioner had challenged a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1976-77 which had been issued pursuant to an order ofThe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, for the assessment year1980-81. This notice was finally struck down by the ApexCourt by its order dated 20.09.2012. In the result, theamount in deposit was to be refunded to the petitioner. |Inspite of his best efforts over the years since the year 2012the respondents have stoically ignored the petitioner’srepresentations and have not passed any orders eitherrejecting his claim or granting his claim and hence thepetitioner is before this Court. 3.|The learned counsel for the respondent wouldsubmit that the delay in processing the_ petitioner’sapplication is on account of pressure of work and it is quitepossible that if reasonable time is granted the respondentswould address the case of the petitioner and passappropriate orders. Accordingly, the respondent No.1 isdirected to refund the amount if the same is due to thepetitioner in a sum of Rs.12,50,000/- with corresponding interest, as well, on the said amount if the petitioner isentitled to the same in law, pursuant to the Supreme Courthaving struck down the order which was under challengeand subject to the disposal of the petition. The amounthaving been deposited the petitioner may be entitled to thesame. Therefore, appropriate orders shall be passed by therespondents within a period of 8 weeks, if not earlier, fromthe date of receipt of a copy of this order. ykl Sd/- JUDGE