IN HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019 BEFORE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV W. P. No.101726/2015 C/W W.P.Nos.101725/2015, 101727/2015 & W.P.No.101728/2015 (T-IT) BETWEEN IN W.P. NO.101726 OF 2015 M/S.ASSOCIATED MINING COMPANY, NO.18/35, SECOND LINK ROAD, PARVATHI NAGAR, BELLARY-583101, REP.BY ITS PARTNER SRI.GALI JANARDHANA REDDY (PERIOD 31.07.2009 TO 01.04.2011) PETITIONER (BY SRI H R KAMBIYAVAR, SRI ARAVIND V. CHAVAN & SRI VINOD KUMAR NAIDU K.V., ADVS.) IN W.P. NO.101725 OF 2015 M/S.ASSOCIATED MINING COMPANY, NO.18/35, SECOND LINK ROAD, PARVATHI NAGAR, BELLARY-583101, REP.BY ITS PARTNER SRI.GALI JANARDHANA REDDY 2 (PERIOD 31.07.2009 TO 01.04.2011) PETITIONER (BY SRI H R KAMBIYAVAR, SRI ARAVIND V. CHAVAN & SRI VINOD KUMAR NAIDU K.V., ADVS.) IN W.P. NO.101727 OF 2015 M/S.ASSOCIATED MINING COMPANY, NO.18/35, SECOND LINK ROAD, PARVATHI NAGAR, BELLARY-583101, REP.BY ITS PARTNER SRI.GALI JANARDHANA REDDY (PERIOD 31.07.2009 TO 01.04.2011) ..... PETITIONER (BY SRI H R KAMBIYAVAR, SRI ARAVIND V. CHAVAN & SMT. PATRI SHASHIKALA K., ADVS.) IN W.P. NO.101728 OF 2015 M/S.ASSOCIATED MINING COMPANY, NO.18/35, SECOND LINK ROAD, PARVATHI NAGAR, BELLARY-583101, REP.BY ITS PARTNER SRI.GALI JANARDHANA REDDY (PERIOD 31.07.2009 TO 01.04.2011) ..... PETITIONER (BY SRI H R KAMBIYAVAR, SRI ARAVIND V. CHAVAN & SMT. PATRI SHASHIKALA K., ADVS.) AND 1. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX INVESTIGATION, C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, 3 BANGALURU-5600001. 2. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX INVESTIGATION, C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALURU-5600001. 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALURU-5600001. 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALURU-5600001. 5. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, STAFF ROAD, FORT, BELLARY-583102. 6. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-VI, C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALURU-5600001. ..... COMMON RESPONDENTS (BY SRI Y V RAVIRAJ, ADV.) WRIT PETITION No.101726 OF 2015 IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER DATED 31.03.2013 PASSED BY THIRD RESPONDENT PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-S AND ORDER DATED 25.08.2014, ITA. NO.188/DCIT,CC-1(3)/CIT(A) -VI/B'LORE/2013-14 PASSED BY SIXTH RESPONDENT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE- W AND DIRECT THIRD RESPONDENT TO REFER OBJECTIONS DATED 15.03.2013 PRODUCED AS 4 ANNEXURE-M REGARDING ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION TO HIS SUPERIOR AS PER SECTION 124(4) OF ACT OR IN ALTERNATIVE TO DIRECT INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL TO DECIDE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE IN STATUTORY APPEAL. WRIT PETITION No.101725/2015 IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHI ORDER DATED 31.03.2013 PASSED BY THIRD RESPONDENT PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-S AND ORDER DATED 25.08.2014, ITA. NO. 187/DCIT, CC-1(3)/CIT(A) -VI/B'LORE/2013-14 PASSED BY SIXTH RESPONDENT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-W AND TO DIRECT THIRD RESPONDENT TO REFER OBJECTIONS DATED 15.03.2013 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-M REGARDING ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION TO HIS SUPERIOR AS PER SECTION 124(4) OF ACT OR IN ALTERNATIVE TO DIRECT INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL TO DECIDE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE IN STATUTORY APPEAL. WRIT PETITION NO 101727/2015 IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER DATED 31.03.2013 PASSED BY THIRD RESPONDENT PRODUCED AS ANNEXUER-S AND ORDER DATED 25.08.2014, PASSED BY SIXTH RESPONDENT PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-W AND TO DIRECT THIRD RESPONDENT TO REFER OBJECTIONS DATED 15.03.2013 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-M REGARDING ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION TO HIS SUPERIOR AS PER SECTION 124(4) OF ACT OR IN ALTERNATIVE TO DIRECT INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL TO DECIDE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE IN STATUTORY APPEAL. WRIT PETITION No.101728/2015 IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER DATED 31.03.2013 PASSED BY THIRD RESPONDENT PRODUCED AS ANNEXUER-S AND ORDER DATED 25.08.2014, PASSED BY 5 SIXTH RESPONDENT PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-W AND TO DIRECT THIRD RESPONDENT TO REFER OBJECTIONS DATED 15.03.2013 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-M REGARDING ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION TO HIS SUPERIOR AS PER SECTION 124(4) OF ACT OR IN ALTERNATIVE TO DIRECT INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL TO DECIDE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE IN STATUTORY APPEAL. THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING B GROUP THIS DAY, COURT, MADE FOLLOWING: ORDER counsel for respondents has filed memo which reads as follows: 1. These Writ Petitions are filed by Petitioner seeking quashing of: i) order of Assessment passed by Assessing Authority, 3rd Respondent as per Annexure-S and th order passed by First Appellant Authority 6th Respondent as per Annexure-@ for Ass Years 2007-08 to 2010-11; ii) Issue writ of mandamus to consider objections filed before Assessing Authority, 3rd Respondent as per Annexure-M. 6 2. It is submitted before this Hon ble High Court that statutory appeal filed by Petitioner against order of First Appellate Authority 6th Respondent as per Annexure-W for Ass Years 2007-08 to 2010-11 having taken up before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, came to be allowed by Tribunal in ITA No.1356-1360/B/2014 dated 18.10.2016. 3. above order of Tribunal came to be challenged by 3rd Respondent before this Hon ble Court by way of Income Tax appeal u/s 260A of Income Tax Act 1961 in ITA Nos.100014 to 100019 of 2017 and this Hon ble Court by its order dated 22/07/2019 has allowed appeals filed their by upholding order of Assessment passed by Assessing Authority, 3rd Respondent as per Annexure-S and order passed by First Appellate Authority 6th Respondent as per Annexure-W. Hence it is submitted before this Hon ble Court that above writ petitions may be dismissed as infructuous. 2. It is submitted that petitions were filed seeking issuance of writ of mandamus to consider objections filed by respondent No.3 in connection 7 with assessment proceedings. It is submitted that first and second appeals filed by assessee and appeals before this Court by revenue have been disposed of. 3. In light of same, relief sought for does not survive for consideration. 4. Counsel for petitioner is present and states that proceedings have been rendered infructuous. 5. In view of same, petitions are dismissed as having become infructuous. Contentions of parties are kept open. Sd/- JUDGE Naa Associated Mining Company v. Dy. Director of I.T. Investigation, Bangaluru/Director of I.T. Investigation, Bangaluru/DCIT, Central Circle-1(3),Bangaluru/CIT, Central Circle-1(3), Bangaluru/DCIT,Circle-1,Bellary/The CIT(A)-VI,Bang