Prl. Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S. Thombathu Milk Producers

                              1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

                         PRESENT

        THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

                          AND

            THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA


          WRIT APPEAL NO.4014 OF 2019 (T-IT)

BETWEEN:

1.     PRL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
       AAYAKAR BHAVAN
       C.R.BUILDING
       N.G.ROAD, ATTAVARA
       MANGALURU-565 001.

2.     DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
       CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTRE
       BENGALURU-560 500.

3.     INCOME-TAX OFFICER
       WARD-2
       AAYAKAR BHAVAN
       ADI-UDUPI MALPE ROAD
       UDUPI-576 103.
                                          ... APPELLANTS

(BY SRI: E.I.SANMATHI, ADVOCATE)


AND:

M/S THOMBATHU MILK PRODUCERS
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY
THOMBATHU, HENGAVALLI VILLAGE
KUNDAPURA TALUK
                              2



UDUPI DISTRICT-576 212.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
SRI.RAJU POOJARY.
                                            ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI: MAHESH R.UPPIN, ADVOCATE)

       THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 19.9.2019 IN WRIT PETITION NO.28873/2019
(T-IT) PASSED BY THE HON'BLE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE.

     THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

                    JUDGMENT

The revenue has preferred this intra Court appeal assailing the order dated 19.09.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.28873 of 2019. The said writ petition was heard along with other writ petitions and common order was passed setting aside the order passed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for the sake of brevity). In those cases, where there was rejection of the application filed under the said Section, consequently the delay in filing the returns was not condoned.

2. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that in this case, the application filed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act has not yet been taken up for consideration, but inadvertently there is a remand in the instant matter also just as in the other cases. He submitted that instead, a direction could be issued to consider the said application seeking condonation of delay in accordance with law. He further submitted that till date, the return filed has been considered only for the limited purpose of Section 143(1) of the Act and no order has been made under Section 143(3) of the Act as the return has not been taken up for being processed under Section 143(3) of the Act.

3. Learned Counsel for the respondent does not oppose the submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellants. Respondent's counsel also submitted that a direction may be issued to consider the application filed by the respondent under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act in an 4 expeditious manner and in accordance with law, if not already disposed.

4. In the circumstances, this appeal is disposed by directing respondent No.1 in the writ petition/appellant No.1 herein to consider the application filed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act in an expeditious manner and at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment and in accordance with law.

Ordered accordingly.

No costs.

In view of the disposal of appeal, pending applications, if any, stand disposed.

Sd/-

JUDGE Sd/-

JUDGE *bgn/-