Karnataka High Court
Malasani Nagraj Sudha vs Income Tax Officer on 7 October, 2021
Author: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV
REVIEW PETITION NO.187/2021
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.5077/2018 (T-IT)
Between:
Malasani Nagraj Sudha,
W/o Mr. M.S. Nagaraj,
Aged about 53 years,
Residing at C/o M/s. Sri Guru Industries,
Medehally,
Chitradurga - 577 501.
... Petitioner
(By Sri Harish V.S., Advocate)
And:
The Income Tax Officer,
Ward-2,
Tamatkal Road,
Medehalli,
Chitradurga - 577 502.
... Respondent
(By Sri K.V. Aravind, Advocate)
2
This Review Petition is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of
CPC, praying to review the judgment dated 20.02.2018
passed by this Hon'ble Court in WP No.5077/2018 by
indicating the time limit for filing the appeal as 31.01.2020
and consequently granting leave to the petitioner to file an
application under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, so as to
meet the ends of justice.
This Review Petition coming on for orders this day, the
Court, made the following:
ORDER
Accepting the reasons stated in the memorandum of
facts, I.A.1/2021 filed for condonation of delay in filing the
review petition is allowed.
Petitioner has filed the present petition seeking for
review of the order dated 20.02.2018 passed by this Court
in W.P.No.5077/2018 and has sought for necessary
permission to file an application under the "Vivad Se
Vishwas Scheme".
2. This Court by order dated 20.02.2018 had
relegated the petitioner to avail of the alternative remedy
by way of first appeal under Section 246 of the Income Tax
Act, 1961 and accordingly, disposed off the petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended
that he intends to avail of the benefit of Vivad Se Vishwas
Scheme and the order passed in W.P.No.5077/2018 though
had relegated the petitioner to avail of the alternative
remedy, due to certain bonafide reasons, alternative
remedy was not availed and accordingly, in the present
circumstances if the petition were to be pending, petitioner
would have been entitled to avail of the benefit under the
Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Petitioner further submits that
under similar circumstances as that of the petitioner herein,
the Co-ordinate Bench in W.P.No.30960/2016 and the
Division Bench in W.A.No.219/2015 had set aside the
proceedings of the Assessing Authority despite the
availability of the alternative remedy and it is contended
that in light of the settled position that alternative remedy is
not an absolute bar if circumstances are made out for
invocation of writ jurisdiction, matter ought to be reviewed
and the writ petition be entertained.
4. It is to be noted that the petitioner has failed to
avail the benefit of invoking the alternative remedy despite
disposal of the writ petition. In the present circumstances,
petitioner is almost remediless. The fact that Vivad Se
Vishwas Scheme does provide for an option for the
petitioner to claim its benefit, but it requires the present
proceedings to be restored and further orders to be passed,
is an aspect of consideration.
5. Taking note of the peculiar facts of the case, the
contention of the petitioner that in similar factual matrix,
the Co-ordinate Bench had entertained the writ despite
availability of alternative remedy and taking note of the
prayer that the petitioner seeks to invoke the benefit under
the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, case is made out in the
interest of justice to review the order dated 20.02.2018
passed in W.P.No.5077/2018.
6. Accordingly, review petition is allowed. Writ
petition stands restored.
The undertaking of the petitioner that in the event he
is unsuccessful in claiming the benefit under the Vivad Se
Vishwas Scheme, he would voluntarily relegate himself to
invoke the substantive remedy and continue the
proceedings before this Court is taken note of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
VP
