H! me man ooum or KARHATAKA AT
nxrmn mm mm 218? on or xov::aIs#:n - _ *
mm Howsm ma. Jusnc m)s?§;1§PAKA 1'
mm nownm, pm.
wnrr mm t1o.3g§1gg
BETWEEN:
K.Kusumaka1", 4'
S/o K.Na1'a.ya1__1:a, ' ._ '
Aged about 39 Years,
Proprietor, .... .. " "<:;,_
M] s. Mallika Cdnstructicus, ' ' ~.. _
mummies -.~ 575
Dakshina District, " .. APPELLAICT.
(3; 'Bhét. Adv.)
. ..... ..'
; nu..-..___...
"1: » "G_::;v.:2:z-rs;tx1c::;iiv 91' India,
VV
r Rep. byTIC.'o11fnn3isslmner
{sf Ino<:znéj'.Ii9x,
me}. aoaa, Attavar,
MA¥§G§LORE -- 575 001.
~ AA Tim Income Tax Ofioer,
-- 1(3), Mangalorc,
mncsmmu KAHHADA -- 575 001. .. mspwnws.
(By Sr.i.M.V.Seshachala, Adv.)
"lt__i,_~k_i__'k__-i-_~I'_* 1 f
This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of
High Court Act, praying to set aside the Writ
Petition NQ49078/2004 datcd 21.10.2005.
This Writ Appeal coming on {pr :,:_1' ,%
nmr-AK vmmza. J., dclivcmd ths: %ro:mmg;..
.1 U n%'"e..t$ 1: 31».
S:i.I{.Rama Bhat, for appellant
and S1:i.M.V.Scshachala, VA apfied for
respondents.
2. With
3. A.pp:«_::lla1__r1′:x by the impugncd onicr
passed on 21.10.2005 in appellanfs
W.P.No.{$9Q78[§O€0?} before us in this appeal pmfamzd
….. Court
4. _ ‘smén for deciding the said appeal, are
% ‘ V’ mentioiizzd hgmiigbclow:
Appellant had approached learned
Single Judge by filing a Writ Petition under
Articles 226 and 227 of the Consfitlxtion of
India against the order dated 28.07.2004
passed by Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,
whereby appc}Ja11t’s appliwtion filed under
Section 1 19(2)(a) of the Income ‘Fax Act, 1961″
(heminafler referred to as the “Act” for shor?V) “-«. u
seeking Waiver of intemst ‘
appellant under Sections 234~A,
234-0 of the Act, was é
appellant had committed ;’def£§._fdité
of advance tax, filing-pf .
filing of returns.
._ to 5: _ the
appenautfs A¢;§:ountaz;;t,”s:i.1<'Babu
even when
the 'gig avaflablc to bun,' rm
'« no-?t¢V consu1t Mm. Further,
Sistéf Kavitha Wm sufl'erm.g' from
i'.<j;ukefiiia,..since 1995 and ultimately expired
2 Thus on account of the
1 two grounds, appeliz-mt was not able
_ «to? the income mx returns for the years
1995-96 to 1999-2000 within time.
It has not ban disputed before us that
assesses did not file mturns of income M’ a
long period. A survey under Section 128-A of
the Act was conducted in the asscssefis
premises and thcmaftcr proceedings under
W5
Section 127 of the Act were
after such proceedings were
appellant, he woke up from his -1- i
then filed returns only for three i
years, but did not pay stay”
the said assessment years’.—_
Considering
filed under Section tngqggga) it of: “act
mentioned
Commissioner Bibi’ of the
opinion. that no “acceptable
for
not tlie…1etums for the
.nsmssfiifnt.ymm in time. It has
vi’-also in any case even if the
sa;ds’._viimasoV ‘ be accepted, then there is
it etnothingcn record to Show that dufsng the
had not carried on his
“‘–v.t_:>’t’fier.:bnsiness According to Chief
Clégnniissioner of Income Tax, if all other
could be carried out by appellant
“. €iu1ing the aforesaid period, then why the
statutory obligation regard to fling of
returns, payment of advance tax, wen: not
carried out.
The Chief Commissioner of ” ,
was therefore constrained to
pefifion filed by aPP°1la_nt.
1l9(2)(a) of the Act,
appellant had preferred W:-sex e1;;¢£am’A ”
learned Singka Judge; _
Rficorda
appellant ‘4 Writ
Petition pager AI’t i5c1es ._ of the
Oonstittxtiszia of £1;dié, Judge
after’ aii angles,
ueg.:ga£i-is%.;_§o 1:; Article 22? of
the and pmceeded to
em. V ” aefl against that d.1sm1ssal’ ‘
of €p:::_t”..’e’t11e appcliant, this appeal
‘ ‘V 56611: piefeixed.
‘ for appellant strenuously submiixed befim:
the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax as
as Judge that appellant was a chronic dcfauher
appellant himself had voluntarily declared his
iz1;(:o’2A’:e:ebifiAA the year 1997.
A361″ having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
after perusal of the records, we an: of the opinion that against the
\T’®e
impugned order passed by learnad Single Judge anti of
Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, vidc V61:
the opinion that no case for intc1:fé:i*i:t);ceA_ 2
Leamed Single Judgc was abso2ute1jz«.p5z§;£§ct
Writ in favour of the
conciuct, behaviour agtfitugm’ ‘i:.,a3A_:Hgvfly bcal
considtzmd not only by thé’ of Income Tax, but
also by lcamcd sings: Judge;v».–S¢¢fio_1′:1__ of the Act is not
meant for suc.h_’ had not cared to file
their return,
6. In view.’ V of we are of the considered opinion
that then: is; L’nq”ar:p3ac ‘f(§fA’*’i§1te1fcrencc in the order passed by
V .mdge«.-M««~’ Appeal being devoid of merits and
:;,11’t}sVta”‘ ac; mgly’ dis1ms’ sod.
.. es
Sd/’9
Judgg
Sd/4.
Iudcjg
AGV.