Spences Hotels Pvt. Ltd. V. Income Tax Officer, Circle \\u2013 6(1) (2) and Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru \\u2013 6

WP/4561/2016

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Spences Hotels Pvt. Ltd., which filed a writ petition against the Income Tax Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru, seeking a refund of Rs.12,50,000. This amount was deposited as a pre-condition during the pendency of a civil appeal related to a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1976-77. The notice was based on an order from the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment year 1980-81 and was eventually struck down by the Supreme Court on 20.09.2012. Despite repeated representations since 2012, the respondents did not process the refund claim, leading the petitioner to approach the High Court of Karnataka.

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 793911 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 22-03-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K V ARAVIND
• Assessee Lawyers: K R PRASAD; ASHOK A KULKARNI
• Keywords: Assessment Year; Deposit; Income Tax; Interest; Notice; Refund; Special Leave Petition
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH, 2016 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY WRIT PETITION NO.4561 OF 2016 (T-IT) Between: M/s. Spences Hotels Pvt. Ltd., No.565/8, 8th Main, HAL II Stage, Indiranagar, Bengaluru – 560 038. (Represented by its Managing Director, Mr. Anand Johar) …Petitioner (By Shri.K.R. Prasad & Shri. Ashok.A. Kulkarni, Advs.) And: 1. Income Tax Officer, Circle – 6(1) (2), 3rd Floor, BMTC Building, 80 ft. Road, Koramangala, Bengaluru – 560 034. 2. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 6, 3rd Floor, BMTC Building, 80 ft. Road, Koramangala, Bengaluru – 560 034. …Respondents 2 (By Shri.K.V. Aravind, Adv.) --- This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ or otherwise to the R-1 having jurisdiction over the petitioner at present to refund the amount of Rs.12,50,000/- along with due interest thereon until the date of refund and etc., This Petition coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the Court made the following:- O R D E R The petitioner is before this Court with a limited prayer. Hence the petition is considered at the stage of preliminary hearing in ‘B’ group. 2. The learned counsel for the respondent is heard. The petitioner is said to have paid a sum of Rs.12,50,000/- as per the instructions of the Apex Court before which Special Leave Petition was pending for the assessment year as a pre condition during the pendency of the Civil appeal. The petitioner had challenged a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 3 1976-77 which had been issued pursuant to an order of The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, for the assessment year 1980-81. This notice was finally struck down by the Apex Court by its order dated 20.09.2012. In the result, the amount in deposit was to be refunded to the petitioner. Inspite of his best efforts over the years since the year 2012 the respondents have stoically ignored the petitioner’s representations and have not passed any orders either rejecting his claim or granting his claim and hence the petitioner is before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the delay in processing the petitioner’s application is on account of pressure of work and it is quite possible that if reasonable time is granted the respondents would address the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. Accordingly, the respondent No.1 is directed to refund the amount if the same is due to the petitioner in a sum of Rs.12,50,000/- with corresponding 4 interest, as well, on the said amount if the petitioner is entitled to the same in law, pursuant to the Supreme Court having struck down the order which was under challenge and subject to the disposal of the petition. The amount having been deposited the petitioner may be entitled to the same. Therefore, appropriate orders shall be passed by the respondents within a period of 8 weeks, if not earlier, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- JUDGE ykl "