Abilash Reddy V. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1 (1) (1), Bangalore and National Faceless Assessment Centre and The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 1, Bangalore

WP/14736/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Abilash Reddy, the petitioner, who challenged the validity of several notices and orders issued by the Income Tax Department under various sections of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2018-19. The petitioner argued that due to an outdated email ID, he was unable to respond to the initial notice under Section 148-A(b), leading to subsequent orders being passed without his participation. The court found merit in the petitioner's argument, noting that the returns filed by the petitioner were incorrectly deemed defective by the assessing authority. Consequently, the court set aside all the contested orders and notices and remitted the matter back for a proper hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 806044 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 03-07-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: M DILIP
• Assessee Lawyers: RAVI SHANKAR V
• Keywords: Assessment; Capital Gains; Income Tax; Notice; Penalty
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 144B; 148A(b); 148A(d)

Judgement Text

" - 1 - NC: 2024:KHC:25042 WP No. 14736 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 14736 OF 2024 (T-IT) BETWEEN: 1. ABILASH REDDY 36 YEARS, NO.44, ''DODDA MANE'', DODDA APPAYANNA REDDY LAYOUT, DODDA BANASWADI BANGALORE - 560 045 PAN: AQZPR3426J PREVIOUSLY AT: ABILASH REDDY 44 THIRUMALA BUILDING DODDA APPAYANNA REDDY ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 043 … PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVI SHANKAR S V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1 (1) (1) BANGALORE - 560 095 2. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE ADDITIONAL/ JOINT / DEPUTY / ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX / INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:25042 WP No. 14736 of 2024 MINISTRY OF FINANCE ROOM NO.401, 2ND FLOOR, E RAMP, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM DELHI - 110 003 3. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1 THE OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE - 560 095 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. DILIP., JUNIOR STANDING COUNSEL) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148A(b) OF THE ACT, DTD 17.03.2022, BEARING DIN NO.ITBA/AST/F/148A(SCN)/2021- 22/1040993911(1) ISSUED BY THE R1 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018.19 HEREIN MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Petitioner has called in question the validity of the notice under Section 148-A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'); order under Section 148-A(d) of the Act at Annexure-A1; notice under Section 148 of the Act at Annexure-A2; order passed under Section 147 read with Sections 144, 144B of the Act at Annexure-A3 and the penalty orders at Annexures-A4 and A5. - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:25042 WP No. 14736 of 2024 2. It is the case of the petitioner that though the notice under Section 148-A(b) was issued, the petitioner could not reply as the email-ID of the assessee was not updated and it stood changed from the earlier one as was available with the Department. It is submitted that consequently, the order passed under Section 148-A(d) and other proceedings pursuant thereto have culminated without the participation of the petitioner. 3. It is pointed out that on merits as well, the assessing authority at Para No. 3.2 of the order at Annexure-A3 has observed that returns have not been filed, while the petitioner in effect has filed the returns as is evidenced at Annexures-B and C though subsequently, it was found out that the same were defective. Even otherwise, it is stated that though the details of computation of capital gains having been made as noticed by the assessing officer, the same ought to have been taken note of in an appropriate manner. - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:25042 WP No. 14736 of 2024 4. Taking note of the submission made and having prima facie perused the calculation sheet, case is made out for affording an opportunity to the petitioner to make out his reply to the notice under Section 148-A(b)of the Act at Annexure-A and to permit the authorities to proceed therefrom. 5. Accordingly, the order under Section 148-A(d) of the Act at Annexure-A1; notice under Section 148 of the Act at Annexure-A2; order passed under Section 147 read with Sections 144, 144B of the Act at Annexure-A3 and the penalty orders at Annexures-A4 and A5 are set aside. The matter is remitted back to the stage of reply to the notice under Section 148-A(b) of the Act at Annexure-A. All contentions on merits are kept open. 6. Writ petition is accordingly disposed off. Sd/- JUDGE VP "