EYGBS (India) LLP V. Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/National E-Assessment Centre and Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(1) and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -2

WP/23812/2023

AI Insights

The case involves EYGBS (India) LLP, which filed a writ petition against the orders issued by the Income Tax authorities for the assessment year 2020-21. The petitioner challenged the orders on the grounds of not being provided a reasonable opportunity to present their case, as they were given insufficient time to respond to the notices issued by the tax authorities. The court found that the petitioner's response was not adequately considered, leading to the quashing of the impugned orders and a directive for a personal hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 810900 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 02-11-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: E I SANMATHI
• Assessee Lawyers: TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR
• Keywords: Assessment year 2020-21; Income Tax; Personal hearing; Reasonable opportunity; Technical glitch; Writ petition
• Section: 143(3); 144C

Judgement Text

"- 1 - NC: 2023:KHC:38804 WP No. 23812 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 23812 OF 2023 (T-IT) BETWEEN: EYGBS (INDIA) LLP 3RD FLOOR, TOWER C, RMX INFINITY OLD MADRAS ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 016 A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP FIRM UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF LLP ACT, 2008 REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY PRASANNA THIRVALLUR ASURI. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ADDITIONAL / JOINT / DEPUTY / ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ INCOME -TAX OFFICER NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE ROOM NO. 401, 2ND FLOR, E-RAMP, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, DELHI – 110003. Digitally signed by NARASIMHA MURTHY VANAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2023:KHC:38804 WP No. 23812 of 2023 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME –TAX, CIRCLE 4(1) (1) BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 095. 3. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2 BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 095. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.E.I. SANMATHI., ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 30.09.2023 (ANNX-N) BEARING DIN ITBA/AST/F/144C/2023-24/1056688187(1) PASSED BY THE R-1 UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 144C OF THE ACT, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2020- 21; QUASH THE ORDER DATED 30.09.2023 (ANNX-P) BEARING DIN ITBA/AST/F/144C/2023- 24/1056688197(1) PASSED BY THE R-1 UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 144C OF THE ACT, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2020-21. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - NC: 2023:KHC:38804 WP No. 23812 of 2023 ORDER The petitioner has impugned the orders dated 30.09.2023 [Annexures-N and P] under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C of the Income Tax Act issued by the first respondent for the assessment year 2020-21. Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that both the orders relate to the petitioner and to the same assessment year, but two orders are generated by the respondents because of a possible technical glitch, and this assertion is not contested. Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, insofar as the merits of the impugned order/s, submits that the petitioner’s grievance is essentially on the ground of the lack of reasonable opportunity and in this regard, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner was issued with notice on 27.09.2023 calling for an explanation before 2 pm on 28.09.2023. She submits that the petitioner, notwithstanding the limited time, - 4 - NC: 2023:KHC:38804 WP No. 23812 of 2023 has filed response as per Annexure-L on 28.09.2023 while requesting for personal hearing, but neither the reply is considered nor the petitioner is extended an opportunity of personal hearing, and the impugned order is issued primarily on the ground that a vague reply is filed without any corroboration. Sri E I Sanmathi, the learned standing counsel for the respondents, is heard in the light of the afore, and he is unable to demonstrate that the petitioner in the response dated 28.09.2023 [Annexure-L] has detailed certain facts and these details have not been considered. As such, on the limited ground of reasonable opportunity, there must be interference. Hence the following: ORDER [a] The petition is allowed in part, and the impugned orders dated 29.09.2023 [Annexures-N and P] are quashed restoring the proceedings for - 5 - NC: 2023:KHC:38804 WP No. 23812 of 2023 reconsideration after extending an opportunity of personal hearing. It would be needless to observe that upon receipt of information of the date of personal hearing, the petitioner shall also be at liberty to file additional response. [b] The respondents are called upon to complete the proceedings within an outer limit of two [2] months from the date of personal hearing that is extended to the petitioner. SD/- JUDGE AN/- "