Skip to content


Rajamma Vs. Second Income-tax Officer, Circle-i, Bangalore - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petition No. 13037 of 1984
Judge
Reported in[1985]152ITR657(KAR); [1985]152ITR657(Karn)
ActsIncome Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 154
AppellantRajamma
RespondentSecond Income-tax Officer, Circle-i, Bangalore
Appellant AdvocateK.S. Puttaswamy, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateK. Srinivasan, Adv.
Excerpt:
- code of civil procedure, 1908. order 21, rule 46: [s.r. bannurmath & jawad rahim, jj] application under -attachment and prohibitory order for disbursement of the amount in rfd account of the judgment debtor maintained by the appellant bank order passed by the executing court held, order 21, rule 46a provides that the courts may in case of a debt, which has been attached under rule 46, upon the application of the attaching creditor, issue notice to the garnishee liable to pay such debt, calling upon him either to pay into court the debt due so as to satisfy the decree in question. the appellant is a garnishee of the judgment debtor is not in dispute. the executing court was justified in passing the impugned order. it is to be noted that mere prohibition under karnataka co-operative..........under the act as early as on june 29, 1983. but so far, the ito has not disposed of the said application. an application made for rectification is required to be decided and disposed of with all such speed and dispatch that is possible in the circumstances of the case. an application for relief cannot be kept in cold storage as had happened in the present case. in this view, i issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to the ito-respondent to consider and dispose of the application made by the petitioner under s. 154 of the act with all such expedition as is possible in the circumstances of the case and, in any event, within one month form the date of the receipt of this order. 3. the writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. in the circumstances of the case, i direct the parties.....
Judgment:

Puttaswamy, J.

1. This case was posted before me today for orders. But, as agreed to by both sides, this is treated as having been listed for final hearing today and is accordingly heard.

2. Under s. 154 of the I.T. Act 1961 ('Act'), the petitioner made an application before the Second ITO, Circle-I, Bangalore ('ITO'), for rectification of an earlier assessment order made against her under the Act as early as on June 29, 1983. But so far, the ITO has not disposed of the said application. an application made for rectification is required to be decided and disposed of with all such speed and dispatch that is possible in the circumstances of the case. An application for relief cannot be kept in cold storage as had happened in the present case. In this view, I issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to the ITO-respondent to consider and dispose of the application made by the petitioner under s. 154 of the Act with all such expedition as is possible in the circumstances of the case and, in any event, within one month form the date of the receipt of this order.

3. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. In the circumstances of the case, I direct the parties to bear their own costs.

4. Let this order be communicated to the respondent within seven days from this day.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //