Wp/6670/2023 Of Sri Gangala Srinivas Suhas v. Cheif Commissioner Of Income Tax

Digitally signedby YAMUNA K LLocation: HighCourt ofKarnataka IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23 DAY OF JANUARY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR -WRIT PETITION NO. 6670 OF 2023 (TIT) BETWEEN: SRI. GANGALA SRINIVAS SUHAS, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS NO.284, NARAYANA PILLAI STREET, BANGALORE - 560 002. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K. MALLAHA RAO, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. CHEIF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 032. 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2)(2), BANGALORE - 560 002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. DILIP, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH NOTICE NO. 1 DATED:18/02/2019 LETTER NO. ITBA/COM/F/17/2018-19/1015098409(1) DEMAND AMOUNT RS. 653142 AND AGAIN NOTICE NO.2 DATED:10/02/2020, VIDE DIN AND LETTER NO. ITBA/COM/F/17/2019- 20/1024906036(1) PASSED BY RESPONDENT No.2 VIDE ANNEXURES-D, D2 AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned notice Annexure-D dated 18.2.2019 and demand notice Annexure-D2 dated 10.2.2020 issued by respondent No.2 to the petitioner and for other relief. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents and perused the material on record. 3. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that though there is no demand against him, he had already paid the taxes, but the same has not been reckoned towards the tax payable by the petitioner since it was paid under the wrong heading, as a result of which, respondent No.2 has issued impugned notices which are erroneous, illegal and arbitrary and the same deserve to be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents invited my attention to the statement of objections in order to point out that the petitioner is due in a sum of Rs.41,990/- including interest payable under Section 220(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as enumerated in the table. In this context, it is necessary to extract the details of the amounts payable by the petitioner to the respondents which is as under: 5. By way of reply, learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has no objection to pay a sum of Rs.41,990/- including interest as quantified by the respondents. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the submission made on behalf of the respondents both oral and in the statement of objections, I deem it just and proper to set aside the impugned notices at Annexures-D and D2 dated 18.2.2019 and 10.2.2020 respectively. 7. In the result, the following: ORDER [a] The petition is hereby disposed of. [b] The impugned notices dated 18.2.2019 and 10.2.2020 vide Annexures-D and D2 issued by respondent No.2 to the petitioners are hereby set aside; 10.2.2020 vide Annexures-D and D2 issued by respondent No.2 to the petitioners are hereby set aside; [c] The petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.41,990/- including interest payable under Section 220(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as Rs.41,990/- including interest payable under Section 220(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:3218 WP No. 6670 of 2023 enumerated in the table to the respondents within a period of four weeks from today; Sd/- JUDGE NSU List No.: 2 Sl No.: 7 CT:SNN