RMS H B MANJULA V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP/4525/2017

AI Insights

The case involves a writ petition filed by H B Manjula against the Income Tax Officer, challenging the assessment order and demand notice issued for the assessment year 2014-15 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that there was a violation of natural justice as certain information used in the assessment was not made available to her, which prevented her from adequately contesting the assessment. The respondent defended the writ petition by suggesting that the petitioner had alternative statutory remedies available, which she chose not to pursue. The court decided not to interfere with the assessment but provided temporary relief by staying the coercive actions until the appeal process is initiated and considered.

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 761179 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 18-02-2020
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: M/s. KOTHARI METALS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K V ARAVIND
• Assessee Lawyers: HARISH S
• Keywords: Appeal; Assessment Order; Coercive Action; Income Tax; Natural Justice; Writ petition
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO. 4525 OF 2017 (T-IT) BETWEEN: RMS H B MANJULA W/O MR P VIKARAM, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT VARSHA, OPP HORTICULLTURAL OFFICE, CHITRADURGA-577502 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. HARISH V S, ADVOCATE) AND: THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 TAMATAKAL ROAD, MEDEHALLI, CHITRADURGA-577502 ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K V ARAVIND, ADVOCTE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT U/S 143(3 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DATED 30.12.2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 I.E., ANNEX-C AND CONSEQUENTIAL NOTICE OF DEMAND ISSUED BY RESPONDENT DATED 30.12.2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 I.E., ANNEX-C1. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- O R D E R Petitioner an assessee under the Income Tax Act is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court calling in question the Assessment Order dated 30.12.2016 made by 2 the respondent herein u/s.143 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2014-15 at Annexure-A and consequential Demand Notice dated 30.12.2016 at Annexure-C. 2. After service of notice, the respondent having entered appearance through its Sr.Panel Counsel, resists the writ petition making submission in justification of the impugned order, the learned Panel Counsel also contends that the petitioner can avail the statutory remedy of appeal and that he has not offered any plausible explanation for bypassing such a remedy. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines to interfere in the matter, however it grants a short reprieve to the petitioner for the following reasons: (a) the contention of the petitioner-assessee that there is violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as certain information on which the impugned order is structured was not made available to him and that had it been made available, he would have made his submission along with necessary documents to rebut the version that arguably emerges from the said information can be 3 examined by the Appellate Authority, namely, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who will be in a better position to appreciate the intricacies involved; the petitioner has not offered any plausible explanation as to why he cannot avail the statutory appeal; the argument that he may be required to deposit some amount as a pre- condition for maintaining appeal is a feeble ground for bypassing such appeal; (b) the apprehension of the petitioner that appeal would take its own time to reach the terminal point and that in the meanwhile coercive action may be initiated, against him can be addressed by interdicting the coercive action under the impugned order & the demand notice, till after petitioner files the appeal within the period to be prescribed by this Court and his application for stay of the impugned order is considered by the jurisdictional appellate authority, as rightly pointed out by the learned Sr. Panel Counsel for the Revenue; and, (c) the learned counsel for the petitioner banks upon a Division Bench decision dated 14,08.2015 in Writ Appeal No.218/2015 (T-IT) between M/s. KOTHARI METALS –vs- INCOME TAX OFFICER in support of his 4 contention that Writ Court can examine the impugned orders, availability of appellate remedy notwithstanding; the scrutiny of the said decision shows that it was a case wherein re-assessment of income u/s.143 r/w Sec.148 of the Act was involved whereas the present writ petition involves regular assessment order where legal parameters for consideration are very different; therefore the said decision does not come to his aid, especially when his interest is protected by some interim arrangement, as above. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed off granting liberty to the petitioner to file appeal against the impugned orders within a period of six weeks and that no coercive action shall be taken under the impugned orders till after the petitioner files accordingly appeal and also his application for stay is considered by the jurisdictional authority in accordance with law. All contentions of the parties are kept open. No costs. Sd/- JUDGE Snb/ "