BTKOPPAL THAMMAIAHPPA SHADAKSHARAPPA V. THE UNION OF INDIA

WP/1041/2023

AI Insights

The case involves a writ petition filed by BTKOPPAL THAMMAIAHPPA SHADAKSHARAPPA against the Union of India and other respondents, challenging the assessment order under Section 144 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner contended that he was not given a reasonable opportunity to present his case before the assessment was concluded. The respondents argued that the petitioner had been given multiple notices, which he failed to respond to. However, the court found that the petitioner's request for adjournment, made upon receiving the notice under Section 144, was not considered, leading to the quashing of the assessment order and related notices.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 769294 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 02-02-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: MADANAN PILLAI; DILIP M
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJEEV NULVI
• Keywords: Adjournment; Assessment Order; Income Tax; Notice; Writ petition
• Section: 144; 142(1); 144B; 156

Judgement Text

" - 1 - WP No. 1041 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1041 OF 2023 (T-IT) BETWEEN: BTKOPPAL THAMMAIAHPPA SHADAKSHARAPPA S/O LATE M THAMMAIAHPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/A NO.66, 2ND CROSS BEHIND VENKATESHWARA TEMPLE VIDYA NAGAR, KADUR CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT KARNATAKA-577548. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJEEV CHANNAPPA NULVI.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS JOINT SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT) ROOM NO.46, NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI, DELHI-110001. 2. THE ASSESSMENT UNIT/INCOME TAX OFFICER INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT NORTH BLOCK Digitally signed by NARASIMHA MURTHY VANAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - WP No. 1041 of 2023 NEW DELHI, DELHI-110001. 3. THE NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE INCOME TAX OFFICER NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI DELHI-110001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.MADANAN PILLAI., CGC FOR R1; SRI. DILIP M, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, DVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 144 READ WITH SECTION 144B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 VIDE DIN NO. ITBA/AST/S/144/2022-23/1048068343(1) DATED 17.12.2022 ALONG WITH COMPUTATION SHEET VIDE DIN NO. ITBA/AST/S/330/2022- 23/1048068451(1) DATED 17.12.2022, AND DEMAND NOTICE U/S 156 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 VIDE DIN NO. ITBA/AST/S/156/2022-23/1048068544(1) DATED 17.12.2022, PASSED BY THE R2 AUTHORITY, PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2021-22 VIDE ANNEXURE A, A1 AND A2 RESPECTIVELY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER The petitioner has impugned the assessment order under Section 144 read with Section 144 B of the Income Tax Act 1961 (for short, ‘the IT Act’). The petitioner’s grievance essentially is premised in the assertion that there is lack of reasonable opportunity. - 3 - WP No. 1041 of 2023 The learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that before the impugned order not only notice under Section 144 of the IT Act is issued but also notices under Section 142(1) and 144B of the IT Act are issued as repeated reminders. However, he contends that the petitioner was not in receipt of these notices because these are addressed to the credentials given in his IT portal. The learned counsel’s principal argument is that upon receipt of notice under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act through the registered post, a request for adjournment was received on the very same day and without considering this request, the assessment is completed by the impugned order. If the petitioner could avail of the opportunity in terms of the notice issued under Section 144 of the IT Act, the petitioner will be able to demonstrate against assessment as now concluded. - 4 - WP No. 1041 of 2023 Sri Dilip M., who appears for Sri K.V.Aravind, the learned counsel on record for the second and the third respondents, submits that the petitioner cannot complain of lack of opportunity because, as is obvious from the petition averments and the submissions, the petitioner has failed to avail opportunity that is extended. However, it remains salient that the petitioner’s request for adjournment on receipt of notice under Section 144 of the IT Act is not considered. If the petitioner could not receive any intimation of the earlier notices but on receipt of the notice through speed post has raised a request for adjournment, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner’s bonafide cannot be disputed and concluded that he has failed to avail opportunity. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the assessment order [Annexure-A] and the consequential orders - 5 - WP No. 1041 of 2023 [Annexures-A1 and A2] must be quashed, and the proceedings restored to the third respondent for reconsideration after due opportunity to the petitioner. Therefore, the following: ORDER The petitioner is allowed in part quashing the impugned order dated 17.12.2022 [as per Annexure-A] and the consequential orders [as per Annexures- A1 and A2] calling upon the third respondent to extend opportunity to the petitioner as contemplated under Section 144 of the IT Act. Sd/- JUDGE SA ct:sr "