Karnataka High Court
Prl. Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S. Padumundu Milk Producers ... on 4 January, 2021
Author: B.V.Nagarathna And Uma
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.4013 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 PADUMUNDU MILK PRODUCERS WOMEN
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY
SHIRIYARA VILLAGE
SAIBRAKATTE POST
2
BRAHMAVARA TALUK
UDIPI DISTRICT-576 210
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
MRS.CHAITHRA.
... 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 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.29584
OF 2019 (T-IT) 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.29584 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
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/-
