KONANAKERE PUTTANNA BHARATH V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP/18441/2021

AI Insights

In this case, the petitioner, Konanakere Puttanna Bharath, challenged the Assessment Order and Demand Notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(4), Bengaluru. The petitioner argued that the order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as he was not given a reasonable opportunity to present his case or documents, which were in the custody of another Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax in Tumkur. The court found that the petitioner was not provided a fair opportunity to respond adequately to the assessment, leading to the quashing of the order and notice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 754388 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 08-11-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K V ARAVIND
• Assessee Lawyers: MAHESH UPPIN
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Demand notice; Natural Justice; Personal hearing
• Section: 226; 227

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.18441 OF 2021 (T-IT) BETWEEN: KONANAKERE PUTTANNA BHARATH S/O K.S.PUTTANNA AGE 40 YEARS, PROPRIETOR: P B R HARDWARE TAPMS BUILDING, N.H.206, GUBBI 572216 TUMKURU DISTRICT …PETITIONER (BY SRI MAHESH R.UPPIN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 (4) BENGLAURU-560 001 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WARD-2 TUMKUR-570 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 22.09.2021 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), BENGALURU IN PAN NO.AMUPB5980G VIDE ANNX-J AND DEMAND NOTICE DTD 22.09.2021 BEARING PAN NO.AMUPB5980G ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), BENGALURU VIDE ANNX-K AND ETC. THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- 2 ORDER In this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned Assessment Order dated 22.09.2021 at Annexure-J passed by respondent No.1 and consequential Demand Notice at Annexure-K dated 22.09.2021 issued by respondent No.1 and for other reliefs. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, 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 by the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner invites my attention to Annexure-F, notice dated 15.09.2021, issued by respondent No.1 to the petitioner and submits that in response thereto, the petitioner addressed a reply dated 18.09.2021 at Annexure-H intimating respondent No.1 that all the relevant records are with respondent No.2, who did not return the same to the petitioner despite repeated requests made by the petitioner and that as such, it was 3 necessary that reasonable time is granted to the petitioner to secure those records and thereafter submit a detailed response along with all relevant documents to respondent No.1. It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite the aforesaid specific assertion made by the petitioner in his response dated 18.09.2021 to the effect that all relevant documents are in the custody and possession of respondent No.2 and the petitioner was not in a position to produce the same before respondent No.1, respondent No.1 has proceeded to pass the impugned Assessment Order in violation of principles of natural justice, without considering the response submitted by the petitioner nor providing reasonable opportunity to him to do so and as such, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and the matter be remitted back to respondent No.1 for reconsideration afresh after providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also requests personal hearing to be given to the petitioner before respondent No.1 at the time of re-consideration of the matter. 4 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. It is also submitted that in the event the petitioner wants personal hearing, the petitioner has to make appropriate request before respondent No.1 at the time of reconsideration of the matter afresh. 5. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, a perusal of the reply/response dated 18.09.2021 submitted by respondent No.1 indicates that the petitioner has specifically stated that since the original documents have been seized by respondent No.2 and that the same are in his custody and possession, reasonable time was required to be given to the petitioner to submit relevant records after securing the same from respondent No.2. Despite the same, respondent No.1 has not given sufficient or reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and has proceeded to pass the impugned order and issued the consequential Demand Notice without providing any opportunity to the petitioner nor given him any personal 5 hearing and consequently, the impugned Assessment Order is violative of principles of natural justice and the same deserves to be quashed and the matter has to be remitted back to respondent No.1 for reconsideration afresh, in accordance with law. 5. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned Assessment Order dated 22.09.2021 at Annexure-J passed by respondent No.1 and consequential Demand Notice at Annexure-K dated 22.09.2021 issued by respondent No.1 are hereby quashed. (iii) The matter is remitted back to respondent No.1 for re-consideration afresh in accordance with law after providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to produce relevant records after securing the same from respondent No.2. (iv) Respondent No.2 is also directed to return all the original records back to the petitioner for the purpose 6 of submission of the same to respondent No.1 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (v) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to request for personal hearing in the matter at the time of reconsideration; if such a request is made by the petitioner in writing to respondent No.1, respondent No.1 shall grant personal hearing of the matter to the petitioner and thereafter, proceed further in accordance with law. SD/- JUDGE Bmc "