BYRANAYAKANAHALLY CHANNABASAPPA PRABHUSWAMY V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP/27561/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Byranayakanahally Channabasappa Prabhuswamy, the petitioner, challenging notices and an order issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Tiptur, and other respondents under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner contested the notices and the subsequent order, which allegedly ignored the documents he submitted, claiming they supported his position regarding the source of cash deposits in his bank account from the sale of agricultural produce. The court found that the respondent had indeed overlooked the documents provided by the petitioner, leading to an erroneous conclusion that no supporting documents were submitted. Consequently, the court quashed the notices and the order, remitting the matter for reconsideration.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 674654 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 13-02-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: M DILIP
• Assessee Lawyers: SHREEHARI KUTSA
• Keywords: Extra-ordinary jurisdiction; Income Tax; Notice Quashing; Writ of Certiorari
• Section: 151; 148A

Judgement Text

" - 1 - NC: 2024:KHC:6197 WP No. 27561 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 27561 OF 2023 (T-IT) BETWEEN: BYRANAYAKANAHALLY CHANNABASAPPA PRABHUSWAMY, S/O LATE SRI. CHANBASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 246, SOWMYASHREE NILAYA, 3RD CROSS, VINAYAKA NAGAR, TIPTUR, TUMKUR - 572 201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHREEHARI KUTSA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, TIPTUR, THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, JAYADEVA COMPLEX, TIPTUR, TUMKUR - 572 201. 2. PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KARNATAKA AND GOA, THE SPECIFIED AUTHORITY UNDER THE SECTION 151 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. Digitally signed by Vandana S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:6197 WP No. 27561 of 2023 3. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE NOW KNOWN AS NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, REP. BY PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (NEAC), ROOM NO. 401, 2ND FLOOR, E-RAMP, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, DELHI - 110 003. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. DILIP, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE UNDER CLAUSE (b) OF SECTION 148A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 DATED 27.01.2023 FOR THE A.Y. 2016-17 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 BEARING DIN VIZ., ITBA/AST/F/148A(SCN)/2022-23/1049166795(1) AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: \"a. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the notice under clause (b) of section 148A of the Income Tax Act 1961 dated 27/01/2023 for the A.Y. 2016-17 issued by the Respondent No.1 bearing DIN viz., ITBA/AST/F/148A(SCN)2022-23/1049166795(1) which is enclosed as Annexure-A. b. Invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court seeking quashing of the notice under clause (d) of Section 148A of the Income Tax Act 1961 dated 15/03/2023 - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:6197 WP No. 27561 of 2023 for the A.Y. 2016-17 issued by the Respondent No.1 bearing DIN viz., ITBA/AST/F/148A/2022-23/1050768558(1) which is enclosed as Annexure-C. c. Invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court seeking quashing of the notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961 dated 31/03/2023 for the A.Y. 2016-17 issued by the Respondent No.1 bearing DIN viz., ITBA/AST/148_1/2022-23/1051724198(1) which is enclosed as Annexure-D. d. And pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity.\" 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondents issued notice under clause (b) of Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the IT Act’ for short] on 27.01.2023 to the petitioner to submit a detailed response/reply on or before 06.02.2023. 4. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though the petitioner had submitted his reply along with all relevant documents in support of his response, respondent No.1 has proceeded to the erroneous conclusion that no documents have been produced by the petitioner along with his reply and consequently, the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 deserves to be set aside and the - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:6197 WP No. 27561 of 2023 matter remitted back to respondent No.1 for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, along with his response/reply, the petitioner had submitted all relevant documents, as could be seen from Annexures - B2 to B4. However, at paragraph-6 of the impugned order dated 15.03.2023, Respondent No.1 has incorrectly stated that the petitioner has not furnished any supporting documents which can relate that the cash received, as deposited in his bank account (table-1), had come from the sale of agriculture produce. The said finding recorded by the respondent is factually incorrect and contrary to the material on record warranting interference by this Court in the present petition. 7. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby allowed. - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:6197 WP No. 27561 of 2023 (ii) The impugned order dated 15.03.2023 and notice dated 31.03.2023 vide Annexures- C & D respectively are hereby quashed. (iii) The matter is remitted back to the stage of issuance of notice under Clause (b) of Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with direction to the respondents to consider the response/reply and documents produced by the petitioner to proceed further in accordance with law after providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and hearing him in accordance with law. (iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to produce additional pleadings, documents before the respondents which shall be considered by them in accordance with law. Sd/- JUDGE KTY List No.: 2 Sl No.: 18 CT:SNN "