M/S ABHILASH SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT CENTRE V. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP/22253/2022

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Abhilash Software Development Centre, represented by its managing partner, Sri Siddaramanna Prasad, who filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition sought a directive for the expeditious disposal of an appeal concerning the claim of deduction under Section 80-IA of the Income Tax Act, which was pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bengaluru, and the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. The petitioner argued that the appeal had not been resolved in a timely manner, despite previous judgments and a CBDT notification supporting their claim. The respondents contested the petition, asserting it lacked merit.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 693401 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 10-11-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Section 80-IA of the Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: E I SANMATHI
• Assessee Lawyers: JINITA CHATERJEE
• Keywords: Assessment Year; CBDT notification; Expeditious Disposal; Income Tax; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 80-IA; 80-IA

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.22253 OF 2022 (T-IT) BETWEEN: M/S. ABHILASH SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT CENTRE (REGD. WITH REGISTRAR OF FIRMS ON 11.03.2003) (ACTIVITY OF DEVELOPING, OPERATING & MAINTAINING INDUSTRIAL PARK) NO.2/10, 3RD FLOOR, PRASAD GROUP 80 FEET ROAD, PUJARI LAYOUT RMV 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 094. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI SIDDARAMANNA PRASAD AGED 68 YEARS S/O OF SRI. SIDDARAMANNA. ...PETITIONER (BY SMT. JINITA CHATERJEE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), BENGLAURU -6 ROOM NO.753, BMTC BUILDING 7TH FLOOR, KORAMANGALA 6TH BLOCK BENGALURU – 560 095. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OF INCOME TAX (APEALS), IT DEPT., NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE DELHI – 110 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. E.I.SANMATHI., ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS EITHER THE R-1 OR THE R-2 AS THE CASE MAY BE BEFORE WHOM THE APPEAL IS PENDING, TO DISPOSE OF THE SAME EXPEDITIOUSLY AND ETC. 2 THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- ORDER In this petition, petitioner has sought for the following reliefs: a) Issue a writ of mandamus or a direction in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondents either the 1st respondent or the 2nd respondent as the case may be before whom the appeal is pending, to dispose of the same expeditiously; b) Issue a writ of mandamus or a direction in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent / 2nd respondent to dispose of the appeal filed for the relevant assessment year within 2 months by allowing the claim of deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act in light of the judgments of the jurisdictional High Court in the petitioner’s own case and also in accordance with the Notification dated 01.03.2018 issued by the CBDT (Annexure – C); c) Pass such other order, direction or writ as this Hon’ble Court deems fit, and d) Direct the respondents to award the costs of this writ petition. 3 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the memorandum of petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeal pending before the concerned respondent Nos.1 and 2 / Appellate Authority filed by the petitioner has not been disposed of so far and as such, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. Though several contentions have been urged by both sides in support of their respective claims, having regard to the undisputed fact that the appeal before the respondent Nos.1 and 2 has not been disposed of so far, without expressing any opinion on the merits / demerits of 4 the rival contentions, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of the petition directing the concerned respondent Nos.1 and 2 to dispose of the appeal pending before it as expeditiously as possible. Subject to the aforesaid directions, petition stands disposed of. All rival contentions are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same. Sd/- JUDGE SV "