HAJEE ABDUL SATTAR SAIT V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1)

WP/11107/2023

AI Insights

In this writ petition, Hajee Abdul Sattar Sait challenged the notices issued under Sections 148-A(b) and 148-A(d) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2016-17. The petitioner argued that the notice under Section 148-A(b) was vague and lacked sufficient details to formulate an intelligible reply, particularly concerning a transaction involving Rs. 2,00,00,000. The court found that the notice did not provide adequate information, which is essential for the petitioner to respond effectively. Consequently, the court set aside the order under Section 148-A(d) and the subsequent notice under Section 148, directing the respondents to furnish the necessary details to the petitioner.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 760661 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 21-06-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: E I SANMATHI
• Assessee Lawyers: SHANKER; MADHUSUDHAN
• Keywords: Reassessment proceedings; Substantive Right; Vague Notice; Verification pending; Cryptic notice; Intelligible reply
• Section: 148; 148A(b); 148A(d); 226; 227

Judgement Text

" - 1 - NC: 2023:KHC:21443 WP No. 11107 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 11107 OF 2023 (T-IT) BETWEEN: 1. HAJEE ABDUL SATTAR SAIT S/O LATE SRI HAJEE MOHAMMED HUSSAIN SAIT AGED ABOUT 89 YEARS SAFINA TOWERS, NO.3, ALI ASKER ROAD VASANTH NAGAR BANGALORE-560 052 … PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHANKER A., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI MADHUSUDHAN U A.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1) BENGALURU IST FLOOR, ROOM NO.101 BMTC BUILDING, 80 FT ROAD 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU-560 095 2. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KARNATAKA AND GOA CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2023:KHC:21443 WP No. 11107 of 2023 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148A(b) OF THE ACT DTD 29.03.2023 OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17 BY THE R1 BEARING NOTICE NO.F.NO.NON- PAN/148A(b)/2016-17/WARD 1(2)(1)/2022-23 HEREIN MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A1 AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Petitioner has called in question the correctness of the notice under Section 148-A(b) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2016-17 at Annexure-A1; the order under Section 148-A(d) at Annexure-A2 and the notice under Section 148 issued consequent thereto at Annexure -A3. 2. It is the submission made by Sri. A. Shankar, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner that the notice at Annexure-A1 under Section 148A(b) is vague and cryptic and perusal of the Verification Details would itself indicate that 'verification is pending' and the details furnished are insufficient to make out any intelligible reply and he points out to the reply made by - 3 - NC: 2023:KHC:21443 WP No. 11107 of 2023 the petitioner at Annexure-C at paragraph Nos. 6, 7 and 8. It is further submitted that despite specific stand in the reply that sufficient information is not forthcoming, order under Section 148-A(d) at Annexure-A2 has been passed while stating at paragraph no.6 that the reply is not acceptable as no stand is taken as regards the transaction for Rs.2,00,00,000/-. 3. After hearing the matter for sometime, it is prima facie clear that in Section 148-A(b) notice, Verification Details stated 'verification is pending' and the amount of Rs.2,00,00,000/- pointed out was without any necessary facts, as a result of which the assessee had sought for furnishing of information. It is to be noticed that the notice under Section 148-A(b) is bereft of necessary information so as to enable a reply. 4. The opportunity for submitting a reply to Section 148-A(b) notice though appears procedural would ineffect be a substantive right as the explanation made to such notice if accepted by the Authority while passing the - 4 - NC: 2023:KHC:21443 WP No. 11107 of 2023 order under Section 148-A(d) may have the result of not continuing with the reassessment proceedings. If that were to be so, full opportunity to the petitioner to reply to the notice under Section 148-A(b) notice is required to be afforded so that a proper order under Section 148-A(d) is passed. In the present case, clearly the information is found wanting. 5. At the request of learned counsel for the Revenue, the respondent is permitted to provide information to the petitioner to enable a proper reply to the 148-A(b) notice. It is made clear that the said direction will not take away the other contentions of the petitioner which are kept open as regards the validity of Section 148-A(b) notice. 6. Accordingly, the order at Annexure-A2 under Section 148-A(d) and consequently, the notice under Section 148 at Annexure-A3 are set aside. The petition is disposed off in light of the discussions made above. All - 5 - NC: 2023:KHC:21443 WP No. 11107 of 2023 contentions of the petitioner including as regards other aspects of 148-A(b) notice are kept open. Sd/- JUDGE VP "