ARADAYALLI NIRVANAPPA ASHWIN V. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF

WP/23112/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Aradayalli Nirvanappa Ashwin, the petitioner, challenging an order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bengaluru-1, and other respondents. The petitioner sought to quash the impugned order which demanded a deposit of 20% of the outstanding tax demand as a condition for staying further proceedings. The petitioner argued that the order was manifestly illegal, arbitrary, and violated Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. The court, after hearing the arguments and reviewing the materials, concluded that the impugned order did not adequately address the petitioner's contentions and failed to comply with the relevant legal standards and precedents, leading to its decision to set aside the order and remit the matter for fresh consideration.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 725955 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 18-09-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Flipkart India (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT, Monarch vs. Income-tax Officer, ITC vs. CCE, Ravi Gupta vs. Commissioner Sales Tax, Deloitte Consulting India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2), Mumbai & Ors., Jain Cycle Spares and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax and Others
• Laws Referred To: Article 14, Article 19, Article 226, Article 227
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: Y V RAJ
• Assessee Lawyers: GANESH SHANDAGE
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Income Tax; Natural Justice; Stay of Proceedings; Writ of Certiorari; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-25/1067579225(1)

Judgement Text

" - 1 - NC: 2024:KHC:38289 WP No.23112 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.23112 OF 2024 (T-IT) BETWEEN: ARADAYALLI NIRVANAPPA ASHWIN SON OF A.S. NIRVANAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 76, SHRI GURUKRUPA SHARADAMMA LAYOUT SOMINAKOPPA ROAD SHIVAMOGGA 577204 KARNATAKA, INDIA AADHAR NO. 7494 3947 7463 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GANESH VISHWNATH SHANDAGE, ADV.,) AND: 1. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BENGALURU-1 BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD 6TH BLOCK, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU 560 095 KARNATAKA. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER ITO WARD 1, AAYAKAR BHAVAN TAMATKAL ROAD, MEDEHALLY CHITRADURGA 577502, KARNATAKA. 3. ASSESSEMENT UNIT INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT/ INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ROOM NO.401 2ND FLOOR, E RAMP JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM DELHI 110003. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. Y.V. RAVI RAJ, ADV.,) Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:38289 WP No.23112 of 2024 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE R-1 BEARING DIN AND LETTER NO. ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-25/1067579225(1) DTD. 13.08.2024 HEREIN ENCLOSED AND MARKED AS ANNX-A AS BEING MANIFESTLY ILLEGAL, INVALID, NULL AND VOID, UNJUST, UNFAIR, ARBITRARY, IRRATIONAL AND VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14 AND 19 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. DIRECTION AS THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT, AS CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF, RESTRAINING R-1 AND 2 FROM PRECIPITATING ANY COERCIVE RECOVERY PROCEEDINGS TO RECOVER THE ENTIRE DISPUTED DEMAND OF RS. 55,66,142/- TILL DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “(i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari, or such other Writ, Order or direction in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari, quashing and setting aside the Impugned Order passed by the Respondent No.1 bearing DIN & Letter No. ITBA/COM/17/2024-25/1067579225(1) dated 13.08.2024 herein enclosed and marked as Annexure-A, as being manifestly illegal, invalid, null & void, unjust, unfair, arbitrary, irrational and violative of Article 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India; - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:38289 WP No.23112 of 2024 (ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus, or such other Writ, Order or direction, as this Honourable Court may deem fit, as consequential relief, restraining Respondent No.1 & 2 form precipitating any coercive recovery proceedings to recover the entire disputed demand of Rs,55,66,142/- till disposal of the appeal filed before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals); and (iii) Pass such other or further orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interests of justice and equity, including the costs of this writ petition.\" 2. Heard. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that aggrieved by the assessment order dated 22.03.2024 and subsequent notices, the petitioner has filed an appeal on 21.04.2024 before respondent No.1-Appellate Authority which is pending consideration. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner filed an application seeking stay of further proceedings pursuant to the order of the Assessing Officer and respondent No.1 proceeded to pass the impugned order allowing the application and granting stay subject to depositing 20% of the outstanding demand on or before 21.08.2024. In this contest, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order apart from being an - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:38289 WP No.23112 of 2024 unreasoned and non speaking order, is also contrary to Circulars issued by the respondent-Central Board of Direct Taxes as well as the following judgments: i. Flipkart India (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT; [2017] 79 taxmann.com 159 (Karn). ii. Monarch vs.Income-tax Officer WRIT PETITION No.4952/2020 (T-IT) dated 04.03.2020. iii. ITC vs. CCE, 2005 (184) ELT 347 (All). iv. Ravi Gupta vs. Commissioner Sales Tax (2009) 22 VST 529; (2009) E.L.T.3 (SC). v. Deloitte Consulting India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2), Mumbai & Ors. In W.P.No.152/2013. vi. Jain Cycle Spares and Co., Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax and Others reported in 267 ITR. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned order and submits that there is no merit in the submission and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. A perusal of the material on record, in particular the application for stay at Annexure-W dated 01.06.2024 will clearly indicates that various contentions including the aforesaid Circulars and judgments which has been relied upon by the petitioner in - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:38289 WP No.23112 of 2024 support of the request for stay; however, respondent No.1 has neither considered nor appreciated the various contentions and submissions made by the petitioner and has proceeded to pass the impugned non speaking, unreasoned, cryptic, and laconic order without any application of mind, thereby violating principles of natural justice and warranting interference in the present petition. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order at Annexure-A deserves to be set aside and the matter remitted back to the respondent No.1-Appellate Authority for reconsideration of the application at Annexure-W dated 01.05.2024 submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law within a stipulated time frame. 6. In the result: ORDER i. Petition is hereby allowed. ii. Impugned order at Annexure-A is hereby set aside. iii. Matter is remitted back to respondent No.1- Appellate Authoirty for reconsideration of application at Annexure-W in accordance with law based in mind the various contentions, - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:38289 WP No.23112 of 2024 Circulars, Judgment etc., submitted by the petitioner as stated supra. iv. Petitioner undertakes to appear before respondent No.1-Appellate Authority on 30.09.2024 without awaiting further notice from the respondent No.1. v. Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to file additional pleadings, documents etc., shall be considered by respondent No.1- Appellate Authority who shall provide sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and proceed further in accordance with law. vi. Respondent No.1-Appellate Authority is directed to dispose of the appeal within a period of one month from 30.09.2024. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33 "