JAKKA SRINIVASULU REDDY V. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF

WP/17195/2018

AI Insights

The case involves Jakka Srinivasulu Reddy, the petitioner, who challenged an order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Bengaluru, under the Income-Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that the order was passed without adequate opportunity for representation and was in violation of the principles of natural justice. The dispute arose from a deemed dividend assessment for the Assessment Year 2012-13. The petitioner received a notice for appearance just minutes before the scheduled time, which he claimed did not provide a reasonable opportunity to respond. The court found merit in the petitioner's argument, noting the belated receipt of the notice and the subsequent failure to provide a fair hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 742679 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 17-02-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income-Tax Act, 1961, Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: DILIP
• Assessee Lawyers: M LAVA
• Keywords: Deemed dividend; Natural Justice; Notice of demand; Writ of Certiorari; Opportunity of Representation
• Section: 156

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.17195/2018 (T-IT) BETWEEN: Jakka Srinivasulu Reddy, Aged about 74 years, No.318, Sri Soudha, 100 Feet Road, Indiranagar, Bangalore - 560 038. … Petitioner (By Sri M. Lava, Advocate) AND: 1. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4, BMTC Depot Building, 80 Feet Road, Koramangala, Bengaluru - 560 095. 2. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Circle 4(1)(1), Room No.229, 2nd Floor, BMTC Depot Building, 80 Feet Road, Koramangala, Bengaluru - 560 095. … Respondents (By Sri Dilip, Advocate for Sri K.V. Aravind, Advocate) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned order giving effect to the order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) under the Income-Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2012-13 dated 30.03.2018 vide Annexure-A passed by the R-2 without affording adequate opportunity of representation and being heard to the petitioner and etc. 2 This Writ Petition coming on for orders this day, the Court, made the following: ORDER Petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order at Annexure-A dated 30.03.2018 passed in OGE/AFKPS0888K/A.Y.2012- 13/JCIT(OSD)/C-4(1)(1)/17-18. Consequential relief is sought for to set aside the notice of demand under Section 156 of the Income Tax Act in Form No.7 dated 30.03.2018 produced at Annexure-B issued by respondent No.2 consequent to the order at Annexure-A. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order at Annexure-A is passed in violation of the natural justice insofar as for the purpose of quantification of deemed dividend pursuant to the order in appeal, the Assessing authority was to quantify such demand and in that context, notice came to be issued at Annexure-F calling upon the petitioner to be present on 28.03.2018 at 11.55 a.m. It is submitted that the said notice was received by the petitioner on 28.03.2018 at 3 11.58 a.m., as per the postal tracking report, copy of which is enclosed at Annexure-G. On the very same day, the petitioner has addressed a communication pointing out to the belated receipt of the notice and had sought for an adjournment in light of non-receipt of legal notice within time. However, proceedings have been concluded and the impugned order has been passed at Annexure-A. 3. The assertion of the petitioner on the basis of the material placed on record, i.e., postal tracking report at Annexure-G would clearly require acceptance in light of the notice having been received after the time fixed for appearance on the date fixed. 4. Accordingly, the impugned order at Annexure-A is set aside and so also the demand notice at Annexure-B. Respondent No.2 is to redo the proceedings pursuant to the directions of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 30.11.2017 in accordance with law after affording an opportunity to the petitioner to appear before the 3rd respondent without further notice on 04.03.2021. 4 Subject to above observations, petition is disposed off. All contentions of the parties are kept open. Sd/- JUDGE VP "