DAIVAJNA PATTINA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMITA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO.1(7)

WP/143620/2020

AI Insights

The case involves Daivajna Pattina Souharda Sahakari Niyamita, represented by its CEO, challenging an order issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward No.1(7), Hubli. The petitioner contested the assessment order and subsequent demand notice for a substantial tax amount, arguing that their stay application was decided without a fair hearing, violating principles of natural justice. The High Court of Karnataka found that the respondent did not provide an opportunity for a fair hearing, leading to the quashing of the impugned order and remitting the matter back for a proper hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 763125 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 24-03-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: Y V RAVIRAJ
• Assessee Lawyers: SANGRAM KULKARNI; S M PATIL
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Fair hearing; Natural Justice; Stay Application; Unbiased hearing
• Section: ITBA/AST/144/2019-20/1021726944(1)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM W.P.NO.143620/2020 (T-RES) BETWEEN : DAIVAJNA PATTINA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMITA DAIVAGNYA PATINA SAHAKARI, P.B.ROAD, NEAR NTTF, DHARWAD-580001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SHRI VINAYAK S/O GANGADHAR SHET, AGE : 49 YEARS, OCC: CEO, R/O HOUSE NO.73, HEMANT NAGAR, KESHWAPUR, HUBLI. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SANGRAM S.KULKARNI & SRI S.M.PATIL, ADVS. ) AND : INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO.1(7), HUBLI, C.R.BUILDING, NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI-580025. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI Y.V.RAVIRAJ, ADV.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING THIS HON’BLE COURT TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER FOR AY 2017-18 VIDE ANNEXURE-A BEARING NO.ITBA/AST/144/2019-20/ 1021726944(1) PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(5), HUBLI ON 05.12.2019 AND SUCH OTHER RELIEFS. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: 2 : ORDER : The captioned writ petition is filed being aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent-assessing authority on 04.02.2020 as per Annexure-D. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent-Assessing Authority passed an assessment order on 05.12.2019 as per Annexure-A. Pursuant to the assessment order, the respondent issued a notice of demand dated 05.12.2019 calling upon the petitioner to pay sum of Rs.1,48,67,879/-. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that he had filed stay application before the respondent-Assessing Authority. The said application is decided by the respondent-Assessing Authority without affording opportunity to the present petitioner herein. 4. Principles of natural justice involves procedural requirement of fairness. Essentially, natural justice requires that a person receive a fair and unbiased hearing before a decision is made that will negatively affect his. The three main requirements of 3 natural justice that must be met in every case are, adequate notice, fair hearing and no bias. In this background, there is absolutely no fair hearing and the order under challenge is arbitrary and the same is passed without affording an opportunity to the petitioner. 5. I have perused the order under challenge. I would find that the respondent-Assessing Authority has passed an order without affording opportunity to the petitioner and on this short point, the order under challenge passed by the respondent-Assessing Authority as per Annexure-D is contrary to the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, the order under challenge is not at all sustainable and the same is liable to be quashed by this Court. 6. I am of the view that the respondent- Assessing Authority needs to hear the present petitioner and thereafter pass appropriate order on the said application filed by the present petitioner herein. For the reasons stated supra, I pass the following: 4 : ORDER : a) The writ petition is allowed. b) The impugned order passed by the respondent-assessing authority as per Annexure-D is quashed. c) The matter stands remitted to the respondent-Assessing Authority. The respondent-Assessing Authority is directed to hear the petitioner and thereafter pass appropriate orders on the stay application in accordance with law within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. d) The petitioner had the benefit of interim order before this Court. Hence, I deem it fit to direct the respondent-Assessing Authority not to take coercive steps till the stay application is decided in accidence with law. Sd/- JUDGE EM/- "