- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18635 WP No. 15602 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 15602 OF 2025 (T-IT) BETWEEN: ABBVIE HEALTHCARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ALLERGAN HEALTHCARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED) A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY INCORPORATED UDNER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVIGN OFFICE AT LEVEL 6 AND 7 PRESTIGE OBELISK KASTURBA ROAD BANGALORE 560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS FINANCE DIRECTOR MR. VIDHAN KEDIA. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ASSESSMENT UNIT INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE ROOM NO.401, 2ND FLOOR E RAMP JAWAHARALAL NEHRU, STADIUM DELHI 110003. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLER 1(1)(1), BANGALORE 2ND FLOOR BMTC BUILDING 6TH BLOCK 80 FEET ROAD, Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18635 WP No. 15602 of 2025 KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE 560095. 3. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 5TH FLOOR BMTC BUILDING 6TH BLOCK 80 FEET ROAD KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE 560095. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.M. DILIP., ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUITON OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 16.05.2025 (ANNX-N) PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL REJECTING THE EARLY HEARING APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE IT IN ITA NO. 981/BANG/2025 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2020-21; DIRECTING THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL TO GRANT EARLY HEARING OF THE PETITIONERS APPEAL IN ITA NO.981/BANG/2025 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2020-21 AND DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL IN A TIME BOUND MANNER; DIRECTING THE DESIGNATED AUTHORITY i.e., THE R-3 HEREIN NOT TO PROCESS THE APPLICATION DATED 30.04.2025 (ANNX-M) FILED IN FORM-1 DTVSV UNDER THE DTVSV SCHEME, 2024 DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18635 WP No. 15602 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] [for short, 'the CITA'] by the Order dated 11.02.2025 has dismissed the petitioner's appeal against the Assessment Order dated 27.09.2023 under Section 143[3] of the Income Tax Act, 1961 holding that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The petitioner, as against the CITA’s Order dated 11.02.2025 has filed appeal with the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [for short, 'the Tribunal'], and in such appeal, the petitioner has filed an application for early hearing. The Tribunal has rejected this application for early hearing on 16.05.2025 opining that it is not satisfied with the reason assigned to seek early disposal. 2. Ms Tanmayee Rajkumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that it cannot be disputed that the petitioner, if an appeal was pending as of 22.07.2024, would be entitled to avail the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18635 WP No. 15602 of 2025 benefit under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 [for short, 'the Scheme'] and that the petitioner's appeal with the CITA was pending as of 22.07.2024 along with an application for condonation of delay. 3. Ms. Tanmayee Rajkumar emphasizes that the Tribunal must consider the petitioner's grievance as against the CITA's order rejecting the appeal on the ground of delay at the earliest because, though the Scheme did not initially specify the time limit and the petitioner is advised to re-submit the application under the Scheme after a decision on the condonation of delay, the petitioner has now ascertained that timelines are prescribed both for filing the application and for processing that application and that if the petitioner's application is not taken up expeditiously by the Tribunal, the petitioner's right to seek the benefit under the Scheme would be frustrated. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18635 WP No. 15602 of 2025 4. Mr. M Dilip, a learned standing counsel for the respondents who is called upon to accept notice, is heard on this aspect as also on Ms. Tanmayee Rajkumar's request for directions to the third respondent to defer processing the petitioner's application under the Scheme until a decision by the Tribunal on the petitioner's grievance with the CITA’s order dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay. 5. The question whether the CITA has rightly considered the petitioner's application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal will remain at large until the petitioner's appeal pending before the Tribunal is pending, and an early decision on this aspect will be crucial if indeed the petitioner has to know whether it can avail the benefit under the Scheme. This will be significant if the benefit under the Scheme is available within a window. As such, this Court is of the definite view that the urgency is made out, and therefore the petition must be - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18635 WP No. 15602 of 2025 disposed of enabling expeditious disposal of the appeal before the Tribunal. 6. On the question of directions to the third respondent to defer processing the petitioner's application under the Scheme, this Court is only persuaded to opine that the petitioner must be at liberty to approach the third respondent with such request calling upon the third respondent to consider the request in accordance with the terms of the Scheme and the petitioner's peculiar circumstances. In the light of the afore, the following: ORDER [a] The petition stands disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to file another application for early hearing with the Tribunal for expeditious consideration of its appeal. [b] The petitioner will be at liberty to file such application on or before 13.06.2025, and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18635 WP No. 15602 of 2025 the Tribunal is called upon to consider the same expeditiously, and in any event, before 20.06.2025. [c] The petitioner is also reserved with liberty to file a representation with the third respondent for deference of the pending application under the Scheme along with a certified copy of this order, calling upon the third respondent to consider the same in the light of the observations made as aforesaid. It is needless to observe that this liberty would not inure if the third respondent has already processed the petitioner's application. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE AN/-