M/S. INTERNATIONAL AEROSPACE MANUFACTURING PRIVATE LIMITED V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP/15382/2023

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. International Aerospace Manufacturing Private Limited, which filed a writ petition against the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, challenging the notices and orders issued under Sections 148A(b), 148A(d), and 148 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2019-20. The petitioner argued that their detailed reply to the initial notice was not considered in the subsequent orders, which led to the filing of the writ petition. The court agreed with the petitioner, noting the lack of consideration of the detailed reply and the cryptic reasoning in the order under Section 148A(d), and thus set aside the orders and notices, remanding the matter for fresh consideration.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 766678 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 27-07-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Constitution of India, Companies Act, 1956, Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SUSHAL TIWARI
• Assessee Lawyers: ANNAMALAI
• Keywords: Application of mind; Assessment year 2019-2020; Income Tax; Notice Quash; Writ petition
• Section: 148; 148A(b); 148A(d); 226; 227

Judgement Text

" - 1 - NC: 2023:KHC:26224 WP No. 15382 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JULY, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 15382 OF 2023 (T-IT) BETWEEN: 1. M/S. INTERNATIONAL AEROSPACE MANUFACTURING PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, SRI. SATHISH SIVARAMAN, S/O SRI. SIVARAMAN, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, SURVEY NO.3, VARTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, KEMPAPURA VILLAGE, BENGALURU RURAL KARNATAKA - 560 037. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANNAMALAI S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1) BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 095. Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2023:KHC:26224 WP No. 15382 of 2023 2. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3 BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 095. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SUSHAL TIWARI., ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. 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 15/03/2023 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2019-2020 BY THE R-1 VIDE DIN AND NOTICE NO. ITBA/AST/F/148A(SCN)/2022-23/ 1050802616(1) HEREIN MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A1 AND ETC. THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER The petitioner has sought for setting aside the notice issued under Section 148A (b) of the Act dated 15.03.2023 issued for the assessment year 2019-20 by the respondent no.1 at Annexure-A1, order under Section 148A (d) of the Act dated 06.04.2023 issued for the assessment year 2019-20 by the respondent no.1 at Annexure-A2 and the order under Section 148 of the Act dated 06.04.2023 issued for the assessment year 2019-20 by the respondent no.1 at Annexure-A3. - 3 - NC: 2023:KHC:26224 WP No. 15382 of 2023 2. The learned counsel for petitioner submits that in response to the 148A (b) notice, a detailed reply has been made out at Annexure-J, in which the specific claim of the petitioner making wrong claim has been rebutted. It is submitted that the said aspect has not been considered while passing an order under Section 148A (d) at Annexure-A2 and that the consideration as regards 148A (d) does not reveal application of mind and the only reasoning as contained in para 6.1 which does not reveal consideration of contentions raised by the petitioner at Annexure-J. Accordingly, it is submitted that apart from other lacunae, 148A (d) order requires to be set aside and the matter to be re-looked into. 3. The learned counsel for Revenue submits that the authority has taken note of the explanation at Annexure-J and explanation at para 6.1 is sufficient. 4. Perused the explanation in response to 148A (b) notice at Annexure-J. The petitioner has made out a detailed reply and consideration at para 6.1 of the order at Annexure-A2 cannot be said reflect application of mind. The respondent authority is to consider the contention raised at Annexure-J and - 4 - NC: 2023:KHC:26224 WP No. 15382 of 2023 pass a speaking order. Accordingly, while noticing the cryptic reasoning in para 6.1 of the order at Annexure-A2, the matter requires reconsideration. 5. Accordingly, the order under Section 148A (d) at Annexure-A2 and the notice under Section 148 at Annexure-A3 are set aside. The matter is relegated to the stage of post reply under Section 148A (b). In light of the matter being relegated, petitioner is also at liberty to file additional submissions in support of Annexure-J. The authority to pass fresh orders after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. All contentions are kept open. Sd/- JUDGE NP "