Wp/9214/2018 Of Smt. Vishalakshi Sudheer v. The Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU| DATED THIS THE 20[‘T]DAY OF MARCH, 20138— BEREROR THR HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA W.P.NO.9214/2018(TIT) BETWEEN: SMT. VISHALAKSHI SUDHEERAGED 51 YEARS,WIFE & LR OF LATE SRI. M.V. SUDHEER,RESIDING AT NO.88,"LALITHA NIVAS"',4TH CROSS, SARASWATHIPURAM,ULSOOR, BENGALURU-560 008. ... PETITIONER (By Sri. S PARTHASARATHI, ADV.,) AND: 1.THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONEROF INCOMBE-TAXBENGALURU-5,ROOM NO.9538, STH FLOOR,80 FEET ROAD,KORAMANGALA,BRENGALURU-560 O95. 2.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX|(APPEALS) 9,7TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING,6TH BLOCK, 80 FEET ROAD,KORAMANGALA,BENGALURU-560 O95. 3.THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER.WARD 93(3)(9),HMT BHAVAN, BELLARY ROAD,BANGALORE-560 032. .. RESPONDENTS (By Sri JEEVAN J. NEERALAGI, ADV. ). THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF]THE CONSTITUTION OF INIDA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDEROF THE 1 RESPONDENT DATED 14.12.2017 PASSED UNDER|SECTION 264 OF THR ACT FOR THER ASSESSMENT YEAR2013-14 IN FILE F.NO.REV.PET. U/S.2604 /VISHALAKSHI/PR.CIT-5 / 2017-18 (ANNEXURE-J) AND ETC. THIS WP COMING ON FOR PRLY. HEARING THIS DAY,|THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER The petitioner has challenged the order of theRespondent No.1 dated 14.12.2017 vide Annexure-u|passed under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(‘Act’ for short) for the Assessment year 2013-14)interaliachallenging the order of the Respondent No.2 dated29.07.2016 passed under Section 250 of the Act. D2 The petitioner is the legal representative and|wife of the assessee namely Sri M.V.Sudheer, who was|an assessee under the Act. The assessee was an!employee of Titan Co. Ltd. (Company’ for short). He| died on 06.10.2012 while in active '§ service. Thpetitioner being the wife and legal representative of the|assessee received the dues from the employer-Company|after deduction of applicable tax under the Act. The)amount so received included gratuity after reducing thetax deducted at source and also leave encashment|benefit. The petitioner filed the return of income for theAssessment Year 2013-14 in respect of the assessee in|the capacity of legal representative wherein the|petitioner claimed exemption from taxation in respect ofsratuity amount and also the leave encashment benefit|received, by placing reliance on Circular No.573 dated|21.08.1990 and Circular No.309 dated 03.07.1981.The|petitioner|declaredotherincome|andafterconsidering the deduction of tax at source, prayed for|refund of excess tax deducted. The Assessing Officer, in the course of assessment proceedings held that the|petitioner was not entitled to the exemption in respect oferatuity and leave encashment benefit in full as claimedand the same was restricted to Rs.10 Lakhs in the case of gratuity and Rs.3 Lakhs in the case of leave)encashment. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was|preferred before the Commissioner of Income Tax)(Appeals) (for short ‘CIT (Appeals)’ -—- Respondent No.2herein, who confirmed the order of the Assessing|Authority. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner|preferred a Revision petition under Section 264 of the|Act before the Respondent No.1. The same came to be|rejected as not maintainable. Hence, this writ petition. 3.)Heard the learned counsel appearing for the|parties and perused the material on record. 4It isprima facieapparent that the petitionerhas chosen a wrong forum in challenging the order of)the Appellate Authority-CIT (Appeals). Hence, the.Respondent No.1 is justified in rejecting the revision as)not maintainable. It is incumbent on the petitioner to)prefer an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate)Tribunal (for short ‘TTAT’) against the order of the CIT)(Appeals). Hence, this Court is of the considered view 3.)Heard the learned counsel appearing for the|parties and perused the material on record. 4It isprima facieapparent that the petitionerhas chosen a wrong forum in challenging the order of)the Appellate Authority-CIT (Appeals). Hence, the.Respondent No.1 is justified in rejecting the revision as)not maintainable. It is incumbent on the petitioner to)prefer an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate)Tribunal (for short ‘TTAT’) against the order of the CIT)(Appeals). Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met in directing the|petitioner to file the statutory appeal before the ITAT in|accordance with law. If such an appeal is preferred,|within a period of two weeks from today, the ITAT shall|consider the same in accordance with law and pass)appropriate orders on merits in an expedite manner)without objecting on the aspect of limitation. Hence,|the following: ORDER. The writ petition stands—disposed of.with libertyto the petitioner to file an appeal, before thejurisdictional Appellate Tribunal, within a period of two)weeks from today. On such appeal being filed, the sameshall be considered by the Tribunal in accordance with|law without objecting for the limitation. Sd/-.JUDGE