Lakshme Gowda Gopalakrishna S/o B. Lakshme Gowda V. The Income Tax Officer Ward-1, New Extension, Kolar and Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, New Delhi

WP/11892/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Lakshme Gowda Gopalakrishna, the petitioner, challenging the validity of several notices and orders issued by the Income Tax Department concerning the assessment year 2018-19. The primary contention was the inadequate time provided to respond to the show cause notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which mandates a minimum of seven days for the assessee to prepare a reply. The petitioner argued that the notice issued on 24.03.2022, requiring a response by 29.03.2022, did not comply with this requirement, thus prejudicing his ability to respond effectively. The court agreed with the petitioner's assertion, leading to the setting aside of the notice and subsequent orders.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 817116 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 25-06-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: M DILIP
• Assessee Lawyers: R CHANDRASHEKAR; KASHINATH KALMATH
• Keywords: Assessment; Income Tax; Notice; Violation of Principles of Natural Justice
• Section: 147; 148; 144B; 148A(b); 148A(d); 226; 227

Judgement Text

" - 1 - NC: 2024:KHC:23336 WP No. 11892 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 11892 OF 2024 (T-IT) BETWEEN: 1. LAKSHME GOWDA GOPALAKRISHNA S/O B. LAKSHME GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS DALASANUR, V DALASANUR POST SRINIVASAPURA TQ - 563 126 … PETITIONER (BY SRI. R. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE AND SRI KASHINATH KALMATH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI RAMA MURTHY R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, NEW EXTENSION, KOLAR - 563 101. 2. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI - 110 001. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. DILIP., JUNIOR STANDING COUNSEL) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICES DTD 24.03.2022 ISSUED U/S 148A(b) OF THE ACT (ANNEXURE-A) [ITBA/AST/F/148A(SCN)/2021-22/ 1041445796 (1)] ISSUED FOR THE AY 2018-19 BY THE R-1 ON THE Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:23336 WP No. 11892 of 2024 GROUND OF NOT PROVIDING MANDATORY TIME TO FILE RESPONSE AS REQUIRED UNDER LAW AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Petitioner has called in question the validity of the notice under Section 148A-(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') at Annexure-A, as well as the order under Section 148-A(d) at Annexure-B; notice under Section 148 of the Act at Annexure-C and the order under Section 147 read with Section 144-B of the Act at Annexure-E. 2. It is noticed that the notice at Annexure-A under Section 148-A(b) is issued on 24.03.2022 calling for reply on or before 29.03.2022. All the proceedings pursuant thereto are pursuant to the proceedings initiated at Annexure-A. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been prejudiced by grant of insufficient time - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:23336 WP No. 11892 of 2024 for making out a reply which is contrary to the mandate under Section 148-A(b) of the Act. 4. Section 148-A(b) provides that show cause notice must give time not less than 7 days for making out a reply. Section 148-A(b) is extracted as herein below: \"(b) provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, by serving upon him a notice to show cause within such time, as may be specified in the notice, being not less than seven days and but not exceeding thirty days from the date on which such notice is issued, or such time, as may be extended by him on the basis of an application in this behalf, as to why a notice under section 148 should not be issued on the basis of information which suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in his case for the relevant assessment year and results of enquiry conducted, if any, as per clause (a).\" 5. In light of the same, noticing that the time granted is contrary to the mandate under Section 148- A(b) of the Act, the assertions that prejudice has been caused and there is violation of principles of natural justice - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:23336 WP No. 11892 of 2024 require to be accepted. Once the notice under Section 148-A(b) is defective insofar as the time afforded is concerned, the consequent order under Section 148-A(d), notice under Section 148 of the Act and the assessment order under Section 147 read with Section 144-B of the Act, are also to be set aside. 6. Accordingly, the order at Annexure-B, notice at Annexure-C and the order at Annexure-E are set aside. However, liberty is reserved to the respondent to take appropriate action regarding the subject matter of notice under Section 148-A(b) of the Act as is permissible in law. 7. In light of the above, writ petition is disposed off. Sd/- JUDGE VP "