MPHASIS CORPORATION V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WA/6764/2017

AI Insights

The case involves Mphasis Corporation, which appealed against the dismissal of their writ petition by a Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court. The writ petition was initially dismissed as premature, with the court suggesting that the petitioner should first address their objections before the Assessing Authority and the Appellate Authorities under the Income Tax Act. The appellant contested that the dismissal did not consider several important issues that went to the root of the matter, particularly questioning the jurisdiction of the authority. The Division Bench of the High Court found merit in the appellant's arguments and decided that the issues raised deserved consideration on their merits, leading to the setting aside of the Single Judge's order and remanding the case for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 763181 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 11-02-2020
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Karnataka High Court Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K V ARAVIND
• Assessee Lawyers: A SHANKAR
• Keywords: Assessment authority; Income Tax; Jurisdiction; Writ Appeal; Premature Dismissal
• Section: 4

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT APPEAL No.6764 OF 2017 BETWEEN: MPHASIS CORPORATION, REP BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, SRI K.R.GIRISH, SON OF SRI.RATNA KRISHNA KALPATHI, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, 460, PARK AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 1101, NEW YORK, NY 1006 USA. … APPELLANT (BY SRI A SHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI M.LAVA, ADVOCATE.) AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 1(2), BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA VITH BLOCK, BENGALURU-560 095. 2 2. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA VITH BLOCK, BENGALURU-560 095. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE 1(1), BANGALORE, ROOM NO.441, 4TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA VITH BLOCK, BENGALURU-560 095. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION 45709 OF 2017 DATED 21/11/2017 AND CONSEQUENTLY GRANT THE RELIEF PRAYED FOR IN THE WRIT PETITION. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.45709 of 2017 dated 21.11.2017, dismissing the writ petition on the ground that it is premature, the writ petitioner is in appeal. 3 2. The primary contention of Sri A.Shankar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant’s learned Counsel is that there were almost eleven grounds urged for consideration before the learned Single Judge. Rather than considering the contentions raised by the writ petitioner, the learned Single Judge has merely held that the writ petition is premature and has dismissed the writ petition. It is his plea that certain important issues were raised for consideration which required to be considered. That they go to the root of the matter. Whether the contentions required to be accepted or not is secondary, but they do deserve merit by the learned Single Judge. 3. The same is disputed by the learned Counsel for the respondents. He submits that in view of holding that the petition is premature, it is not necessary to consider any of the issues involved. Therefore, it is merely a technical ground that all those contentions are required to be considered. 4. On hearing the learned Counsels, we are of the view that appropriate interference is called for. 4 5. The writ petition was filed on various grounds. One of the grounds on which the writ petition was dismissed is that interference in the instant proceedings which prima facie appear to have been validly initiated, is not necessary. Therefore, keeping it open for the petitioner-assessee to press the objections before the Assessing Authority and the Appellate Authorities under the Act to decide the objections and adjudicate on the same, the petition was dismissed as premature. 6. We are of the considered view that the contentions of the writ petitioner are required to be considered on merits, especially when the jurisdiction of the authority itself is questioned. Jurisdiction is an important issue. Therefore, we are of the view that the matter requires to be re-considered on merits. 7. Under these circumstances, the writ appeal is allowed. The order dated 21.11.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.45709 of 2017 is set aside. The writ petition requires be heard afresh on merits including 5 the objection of the respondents that the writ petition is not maintainable. 8. The respondents are at liberty to file their statement of objections before the learned Single Judge. In view of the pendency of the appeal before the Assessing Authority, the learned Single Judge is requested to dispose off the petition as expeditiously as possible. Till the disposal of the writ petition, the interim order granted by this Court shall continue. All contentions are kept open. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE KK CT-HR "