Wp/53602/2018 Of Mr Venkatesh E (Huf) v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax-1

IN THR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THR 18 DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE: THR HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICK S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.53602/2018 (TIT) BETWEEN: Mr. VENKATESH E (HUF)AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,PAN: AAIH VO9O3304, SRI VARI HERITAGE,KUVEMPU NAGAR,DODDAKALLASANDRA, BANGALORE -560 062. _.. PETITIONER| IBY SRI ARAVINDA 8.N., ADV.| AND: 1.|CHIEF COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX-1, QUEENS ROAD,BANGALORE -560 OO1.INCOME TAX-1, QUEENS ROAD,BANGALORE -560 OO1. INCOME TAX-1, QUEENS ROAD, oD COMMISSIONER OF INCOMBTAX (APPEAL)-IIIT OR CIT A(JURISDICTIONAL/ CONCERNED)BANGALORE -560 095.TAX (APPEAL)-IIIT OR CIT A(JURISDICTIONAL/ CONCERNED)BANGALORE -560 095. 3.|INCOME TAX OFFICEHKWARD-3(2) (4), 1[S|]FLOOR,BMTC DEPOT BUILDING,KORAMANGALA)BANGALORE-560 O95.WARD-3(2) (4), 1[S|]FLOOR,BMTC DEPOT BUILDING,KORAMANGALA)BANGALORE-560 O95. .. RESPONDENTS. IBY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.| THIS WRIT PEIITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 2260 &22/ OF THE CONSITIUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE -9.- CLASS/SECTION INCENTIVE PLAN N THE "QUALITY ORDERS"3(i) & 3(1i) OF THE CENTRAL ACTION PLAN 2018-19 AND.FURTHER, PLEASED TO DIRECT THE CIT(A) AS THE CIT(A) THE.1 APPELLATE,AUTHORITYIS|CONSIDEREDAS|AN|ALTERNATIVE REMEDY, TO ADJUDICATE THE APPEAL IN|ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND WITHOUT BBING INFLUENCED|BY THE CLASSES OF INCENTIVE FOR THE QUALITY ORDER L.e.,CLASS 3(i) AND 3(11) OF THE CENTRAL ACTION PLAN 2018-19)ANNBXURE-P. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING|IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the.parties. 2 |The grievance of the petitioner is that theappeal filed by him before the Appellate Authority hasnot been disposed of in accordance with law. 3.|The petitioner/assessee aggrieved by the >assessments concluded by respondent No.3 relating tothe assessment year 2015-16 has preferred an appealbefore the Appellate Authority — respondent No.2. In themeanwhile, respondent No.3 has initiated the recoveryproceedings. In such circumstances, the petitioner has -3- approached respondent No.2 — Appellate Authority forearly hearing, but the same has not been responded to. —Hence, this writ petition. 4HavingregardTOthefactsandcircumstances of the case, this Court is of the)considered opinion that the ends of justice would besub-served in directing respondent No.2 — AppellateAuthority to adjudicate upon the appeal and decide thesame in accordance with law in an expedite manner, inany event, not later than eight weeks from the date ofreceipt of certified copy of the order. With the aforesaid observations and directions,the writ petition stands disposed of. | PMR Sd/-JUDGE