2018 (8) TMI 1261

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... mandamus directing the respondent-Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to consider the Misc. Petition on merits. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that on 24.12.2009 the respondent concluded the assessment under the provisions of Section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961(for short "Act") assessing the income of the petitioner at Rs. 1,14,93,587/- by taking the entire income of the petitioner as the income from business though a part of it was declared as income from other source, thereby the income was assessed at a higher rate. On 28.4.2009, the petitioner was served demand notice under a printed form I.T.N.S.29 indicating the issue of notice under Section 274 read with Section 271 of the Act and also issued intimation of penalty proceedings u....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ecifically held that notice under Section 274 should specifically state the grounds mentioned in Section 271(1)(c) i.e. whether it is for the concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The notice sent in a printed form without mentioning the grounds would not satisfy the requirement of law and as such the Tribunal ought to have decided the miscellaneous petition on merits instead of dismissing only on technicality. Therefore, she sought to allow the writ petition. 6. In support of her contention, she has sought to rely on the dictum of this Court in the case of Practice Strategic Communications India Private Limited. vs. C.S.T., Domlur, reported in 2016(45) S.T.R. 47(Kar.) wherein this Court while considerin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... appeal on merits. The same was reaffirmed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on 13.1.2015. The petitioner filed Misc. Petition in ITA.No.860/Bang/2012 on 30.12.2016 to review the order passed by the ITAT mainly on the ground that the petitioner was under the impression that the appeal was partly allowed by the Appellate Tribunal; the petitioner did not realize that substantial relief was not grated by the Tribunal and only a consequential order was passed following the order of the respondent herein. The petitioner having realized that he is entitled for substantial relief especially in view of the dictum of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax and another. vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ld by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Practice Strategic Communications India Private Limited.vs. C.S.T., Domlur, reported in 2016(45) S.T.R. 47(Kar.) wherein this Court at Paragraph (11) has held as under:- 11. In view of the above referred decision of this Court, if this Court finds that the authority has passed the order without jurisdiction or has exercised the power in excess of the jurisdiction or by over-stepping or crossing the limit of jurisdiction or that there is failure of justice, or it has resulted in gross injustice, it would be a case falling under the exceptional category of exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution and to interfere with the order of the original authority or the appellat....