Wp/6376/2014 Of M/S John, Joseph & Mathew v. Commissioner Of Income-Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16[th]DAY OF DECEMBER 2014 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HULUVADI G.RAMESH Writ Petition Nos.6376 & 121885--12186 / 2014 (T0IT} BETWEEN: M/s.John, Joseph & Mathew,A Partnership firm comprising ofChartered Accountants,No.2/1, Shiva Krupa, 4[th]Cross,|#[ra]Main, Ganganagar Extension, |PO Box No.3252, Bangalore. .. Petitioner ( By Sri Nitya Kalyani P., Advocate ) AND: 1.Commissioner of Income-tax,Bangalore-II, C.R.Building,Queens Road, Bangalore,Rep.by Commissioner-II. 2.Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore-I, C.R.Building,|Queens Road, Bangalore... Respondents| (By Sri K.V.Aravind, Advocate) These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227 ot theConstitution of India praying to set aside the impugned order of R1dated 10[th]May 2013 at Annexure-A. These Writ Petitions coming on for hearing this day, the Courtmade the following : ORDER Petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order passed|by the 1 respondent dated 10[th]May 2013 vide Annexure-A byissuing writ of certiorari; to set aside the order dated 19.6.2013passed by 2[nd]respondent vide Annexure-J and to directrespondent No.1 to condone the delay in filing the returns forthe years 2008-09 to 2010-11 and to grant refund claims putforth by the petitioner. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that, it is a firm ofChartered Accountants. It filed an application tor condonationof delay in filing the income tax returns and also claimingrefund for the assessment year 2008-09 to 2010-11 before theCommissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore-II. According to thepetitioner, the delay occurred because of some disruption infunctioning of the firm as dispute arose between the partnersin the firm. The 1[St]respondent rejected the application.Against this, a Revision Petition came to be filed before theChief Commissioner of Income Tax. The same came to bedisposed of on the ground that no review of such order of respondent No.1 was contemplated as per Sections 264 and119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act vide Annexure-J. Stating thatthe said order is a non-speaking order and without any reason,petitioner is before this Court. 3. According to the petitioner, they are entitled for|refund of revenue in respect of the returns filed. The delayoccurred is due to disruption in the functioning of the firm as|some partners went out of partnership firm and the same hasnot been accepted by respondent No.1. 4 jj The submission of the learned counsel for therespondent is that delay is not satisfactorily explained and assuch, by exercising discretion, the assessing authority has notassessed the returns filed belatedly and accordingly, submittedthat there is no error in the order passed by the 1[st]respondent. oO. However, one more opportunity needs to be given to|the petitioner to appear before the respondent-authority. As|such, petitioner is hereby directed to appear before the|respondent-authority within two months from the date of|receipt of copy of this order and to submit its explanation in detail and it is for the respondent-authority to consider thesame in accordance with law and to assess the returns filed. Accordingly, the impugned order at Annexure-A passed|by the 1[St]respondent is quashed, with liberty to therespondent-authority to assess the returns filed and also toconsider the aspect of delay in accordance with law. In the|event, the respondent-authority is not satisfied with regard toassessment made and come to the conclusion that petitioner isnot entitled for refund, it is for the respondent-authority toraise demand, for which the petitioner should not raise anyobjection regarding limitation. Writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly. Sd/-JUDGE 4bk/