KINFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED V. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4 (1) (1)

WP/12860/2022

AI Insights

KINFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED filed a writ petition against the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and the National Faceless Assessment Centre, challenging several notices and orders related to the Income Tax assessments for the year 2012-13. The petitioner argued that the assessments and subsequent orders were passed ex-parte due to their inability to respond to the notices, as the business was taken over by borrowers and the notices were not communicated to them. The respondents contended that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunities to respond but failed to do so. The court, considering the petitioner's circumstances, decided to quash the impugned orders and remit the matter for fresh consideration, allowing the petitioner to present its case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 694106 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 08-09-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: E I SANMATHI
• Assessee Lawyers: SHREEHARI KUTSA
• Keywords: Assessment Year 2012-13; Bonafide reasons; Ex parte order; Income Tax; Unavoidable circumstances; Writ of Certiorari
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 154; 271(1)(c); 271F; 156

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.12860 OF 2022 (T-IT) BETWEEN: KINFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956 REP. BY DIRECTOR SRI. RAVI KUMAR, SON OF DORAI SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, NO.02/10, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 011, PRESENTLY AT: FLAT NO.E 1201, MANTRI ELEGANCE, N.S. PALYA, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 076. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHREEHARI KUTSA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4 (1) (1) BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 095. 2 . NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE REP. BY PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (NEAC), ROOM NO.401, 2ND FLOOR, E-RAMP, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, DELHI-110 003. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. E.I.SANMATHI, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DTD 29.03.2019 ISSUED BY THE R1 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 BEARING DIN ITBA/AST/S/148/2018-19/1015526441(1) WHICH IS ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-M AND ETC. 2 THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- ORDER In this petition, petitioner has sought for the following reliefs: a. Issue a writ of certiorari or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 29.03.2019 issued by the respondent No.1 for the Assessment Year 2012- 13 bearing DIN ITBA / AST / S / 148 / 2018-19 / 1015526441(1) which is enclosed as Annexure-M. b. Issue a writ of certiorari or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the order of assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 25.11.2019 issued by the respondent No.1 for the Assessment Year 2012-13 which is enclosed as Annexure-N. c. Issue a writ of certiorari or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the notice of demand u/s 156 in pursuance to the order of assessment u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 25.11.2019 issued by the respondent No.1 for the Assessment Year 2012-13 which is enclosed as Annexure-P. d. Issue a writ of certiorari or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the order u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 09.04.2021 issued by the respondent No.1 for the Assessment Year 2012- 3 13 bearing DIN i.e, ITBA/COM/F/17/2021- 22/1032322151(1) which is enclosed as Annexure-Q. e. Issue a writ of certiorari or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the order u/s 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 06.01.2022 issued by the respondent No.2 for the Assessment Year 2012- 13 bearing DIN i.e, ITBA/PNL/F271F/2021- 22/1038489414(1) which is enclosed as Annexure-R. f. Issue a writ of certiorari or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the notice of demand u/s 156 issued in pursuance to the order passed u/s 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 06.01.2022 issued by the respondent No.2 for the Assessment Year 2012-13 bearing DIN i.e, ITBA/PNL/S/156/ 2021-22/1038489180(1) which is enclosed as Annexure-S g. Issue a writ of certiorari or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 14.01.2022 issued by the respondent No.2 for the Assessment Year 2012-13 bearing DIN i.e, ITBA/PNL/F/271(1) (C)/2021-22/1038755517(1) which is enclosed as Annexure-T. h. Issue a writ of certiorari or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the notice of demand u/s 156 issued in pursuance to the order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 14.01.2022 issued by the respondent No.2 for the Assessment Year 2012-13 bearing DIN i.e, ITBA/PNL/S/156/2021-22/1038755392(1) which is enclosed as Annexure-U. 4 i. And pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the memorandum of petition and referring to the documents produced thereto, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as can be seen from the impugned order, the same is an ex-parte order passed in the absence of the petitioner. In this context, it is pointed out that inability and omission on the part of the petitioner to submit replies to the notices issued by the respondents and to participate in the proceedings was due to bonafide and unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause inasmuch as the business was taken over by the borrowers since 2012 and the notice, which was issued to the earlier auditor was not forwarded / communicated to the petitioner and consequently, the petitioner was not in a position to issue reply or appear before the respondents and 5 participate in the said proceedings. It is submitted that the petitioner has a good case to urge on merits and if one more opportunity is granted in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner would submit its reply along with the documents and participate in the proceedings and as such, it is necessary that the impugned orders at Annexures – M, N, P, Q, R, S, T and U be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the respondents by providing one more opportunity to the petitioner to submit its reply to the notices and direct the respondents to proceed further in accordance with law. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that despite sufficient opportunity being granted in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner did not send its reply nor participated in the proceedings and consequently, the impugned order does not warrant interference by this Court and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. A perusal of the impugned order at Annexure – M will clearly indicate that the same was passed in the absence of the petitioner, who did not avail the opportunity 6 provided by the respondent, who has proceeded to pass the impugned order. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and specific assertions on the part of the petitioner that due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, the petitioner was not in a position to send reply enclosing documents and contest the proceedings and in order to provide one more opportunity to the petitioner, by adopting a justice oriented approach, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the respondents for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law after providing one more opportunity to the petitioner in this regard. 6. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The impugned notice / orders at Annexures – M, N, P, Q, R, S, T and U dated 29.03.2019, 25.11.2019, 25.11.2019, 09.04.2021, 06.01.2022, 06.01.2022, 14.01.2022 and 14.01.2022, respectively, are hereby quashed. 7 (ii) Matter is remitted back to the respondents for reconsideration afresh. (iii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to file its reply, pleadings, documents, etc., before the respondent No.2, who shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. (iv) Respondent No.2 is also directed to allow an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner before passing appropriate orders as stated supra. (v) All rival contentions are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same. Sd/- JUDGE SV "