IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ WRIT APPEAL NOS.6800-6804 OF 2017 AND WRIT APPEAL NO.6834 OF 2017 (T-IT) BETWEEN:
1. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX BENGALURU-560 002 OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING 6TH BLOCK, 80 FEET ROAD KORAMANGALA BENGALURU-560 095.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SARAF COLONY SHRADDHA BUILDING KHANAPUR ROAD, TILAKWADI BENGALURU-590 006.
... APPELLANTS (BY SRI:K.V.ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. M/S. DHAMMANAGI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SMT. MANGALA BABU DHAMMANAGI AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS NO.137, RAILWAY PARALLEL ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU-560 020.
2. M/S. DHAMMANAGI HOSPITALITIES PVT. LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SMT. MANGALA BABU DHAMMANAGI AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS NO.137, RAILWAY PARALLEL ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU-560 020.
3. M/S. D AND N ASSOCIATES REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI ANAND NADIG AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS NO.137, RAILWAY PARALLEL ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU-560 020.
4. M/S. DHAMMANAGI AND SANU DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI HARSHA B. DHAMMANAGI AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS NO.137, RAILWAY PARALLEL ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU-560 020.
5. SHRI K. PURUSHOTHAMA ADIGA SON OF SRI S.M.ADIGA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS NO.39, SHRI GURUKRUPA MAHAKAVI KUVEMPU ROAD VENKATADRI, BEHIND APOLLO HOSPITAL BANNERGHATTA ROAD BENGALURU-560 076.
6. M/S. DHAMMANAGI PROPERTY DEVELOPERS REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SMT. MANGALA BABU DHAMMANAGI AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS NO.137, RAILWAY PARALLEL ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU-560 020.
7. SRI ANAND NADIGA NO.20, BHAVANI HBCS, 1ST B CROSS 5TH BLOCK, BANAGIRINAGAR 3RD STAGE, BANASHANKARI KATHRIGUPPE BENGALURU-560 085.
8. I FOCUS SYSTEM INDIA PVT. LTD., 137, RAILWAY PARALLEL ROAD KUMAR PARK (WEST) BENGALURU - 560 001.
9. GIRISH CHANDRAKANT SANU 4-9-776, SANU PALACE M.G. ROAD, KODIALBAIL MANGALURU - 575 003.
10. CHANDRAKANT SANU 5-10-1012 OF 18 MARUTI KRUPA, ALAKE MANGALURU - 575 003.
11. A.V.DHAMMANAGI VISION FOUNDATION ALANKAR NAGAR MURGOD ROAD BAILHONGAL – 591 102.
12. SRI BABU ADIVEPPA DHAMMANAGI 725, ANNAPURNESHWARI KRUPA MURGOD ROAD BAILHONGAL – 591 102.
13. A.V. DHAMMANAGI TEXTILES 571/A/18, DHAMMANAGI BUILDING BAZAR ROAD, JAVALI KHOOT BAILHONGAL- 591 102.
14. SHANKAR MUNAVALLI PLOT NO.13, ‘SHOBHA NILAYA’ 7TH CROSS, SHASTRI NAGAR BELAGAVI – 590 003.
15. SHASHISHEKHAR SHIVAJI KULKARNI 1420, BASAVAN GALLI BELAGAVI – 590 001.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI:M.LAVA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R13; SRI:GANGADHARA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI:V.P.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R14; SRI:H.V.DARSHAN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI:H.R.KAMBIYAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR R15) THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NOS.36428-36433 OF 2017 (T-IT) DATED 13.11.2017.
***** THESE WRIT APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 13.11.2017 passed in Writ Petition Nos.36428-36433 of 2017 by the learned Single Judge in directing the respondent-department to transfer all the cases pertaining to the group of 15 assessments to Bengaluru, the instant appeals are filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 before the learned Single Judge.
2. During the pendency of these proceedings, all the 15 persons were impleaded as respondents herein. Except respondent No.14, none of the other respondents have objections for compliance of the order of the learned single Judge. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the order of the learned Single Judge requires to be complied with. When all the other respondents except respondent No.14, have accepted the order of the learned Single Judge, we do not find any acceptable reason to consider the objection so far as respondent No.14 is concerned. In fact, what the learned Single Judge held is not only in the interest of the revenue but more so in interest of the assessee also. Therefore, we do not find any legal infringement to the right of respondent No.14 that requires to be addressed by us.
Consequently, the appeals are disposed off.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE *bgn/-