Boraiah Shivananjaiah S/o. Late. Sri. Boraiah V. National E-Assessment Centre and Union of India and Central Board of Direct Taxes

WP/4883/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Boraiah Shivananjaiah, the petitioner, who challenged the assessment order and demand notice issued by the National E-Assessment Centre (NEAC) for the assessment year 2018-19. The petitioner argued that the assessment was conducted without providing adequate opportunity, resulting in a high-pitched assessment. The respondents contended that multiple opportunities were provided to the petitioner, who only submitted partial responses. The court decided to quash the assessment order and demand notice, allowing for re-assessment, contingent upon the petitioner depositing Rs.15 lakhs.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 689701 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 25-03-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K V ARAVIND
• Assessee Lawyers: SHREEHARI KUSTA
• Keywords: Assessment Order; High-pitched assessment; Opportunity to Respond; Re-assessment; Writ petition
• Section: 143; 143(3A); 143(3B); 156

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.4883/2022 (T-IT) BETWEEN : BORAIAH SHIVANANJAIAH S/O. LATE. SRI. BORAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS K. JANATHA COLONY, BIDADI, RAMANAGAR – 562 109. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHREEHARI KUSTA.,ADVOCATE) AND : 1. NATIONAL E - ASSESSMENT CENTRE REP BY PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( NEAC), ROOM NO. 401, 2ND FLOOR, E RAMP, JAWAHARALAL NEHRU STADIUM, DELHI – 110 003. 2. UNION OF INDIA REP BY DIRECTOR, OF REVENUE UNDER MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ROOM NO. 46, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI – 110 001. 3. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES REP BY THE CHAIRMAN, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI – 110 002. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.V. ARAVIND.,ADVOCATE) 2 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143 R.W.S. 143(3A) AND 143(3B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DATED 31.03.2021 ISSUED BY THE R-1 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19 WHICH BEARS THE DIN VIZ., ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/202-21/1032012479(1) WHICH IS ENCLOSED AS VIDE ANNX-A; QUASH THE NOTICE OF DEMAND UNDER SECTION 156 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DATED 31.03.2021 ISSUED BY THE R-1 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19 WHICH BEARS THE DIN ITBA/AST/S/156/202-21/1032015297(1) WHICH IS ENCLOSED AS VIDE ANNEXURE-B. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRLIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER The petitioner has impugned the Assessment Order dated 31.3.2021 (Annexure –A) under Section 143 read with Sections 143 (3A) and 143(3B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner’s grievance is that this order, which is without opportunity to the petitioner, has resulted in high-pitched assessment. Sri.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that the records would indicate that the petitioner has been accorded multiple opportunities and in fact the petitioner, upon service of notice, has filed 3 partial response and undertaking and therefore, the petitioner cannot contend that there is lack of opportunity. However, the fact remains that the petitioner has not filed complete response and his participation in the proceedings is not complete. The petitioner’s grievance is that the assessment order has resulted in high- pitched assessment. This Court, to eliminate precipitous litigation and to ensure that there is adjudication on merit, is of the considered view that there must be another opportunity for the petitioner. When queried, Sri K.V.Aravind points out that the impugned assessment order is dated 31.3.2021 and most of the issues raised by the petitioner has been adjudicated upon. These circumstances are considered in putting the petitioner on terms as regards the deposit. A sum of Rs.15 lakhs, given the petitioner’s 4 grievance with the demand, would undeniably be commensurate with the amount the petitioner would have deposited if he had filed an appeal. In the light of the above, the following: ORDER (a) The petition is allowed in part. (b) The assessment order dated 31.03.2021 in No.ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2020-21/1032012479(1) and the demand notice dated 31.3.2021 in No.ITBA/AST/S/156/2020-21/1032015297(1) by the first respondent are quashed and the proceedings are restored for re-assessment, subject to the petitioner depositing Rs.15 lakhs within a period of four weeks from today. SD/- JUDGE SA/- Ct:sr "