M/S ELEGANT BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP/23042/2024

AI Insights

The case involves M/S Elegant Builders and Developers, a partnership firm, represented by its partner Mr. M. Subramani, challenging several bank attachment notices and an assessment order issued by the Income Tax Department. The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed ex parte and without proper notification or opportunity to contest, violating principles of natural justice. The respondents contended that the petitioner was aware of the proceedings through notices uploaded on an e-portal. The court found that the assessment order was neither digitally nor physically signed and was issued without the petitioner's participation, leading to its quashing and the remittance of the case for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 753748 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 03-09-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Begur Sinappa Venkatesh Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Sri.Narayanappa Gangadhar Vs. Income Tax Officer
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961, Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: E I SANMATHI
• Assessee Lawyers: SANDEEP HUILGOL
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Bank Attachment Notice; Digital Signature; Exparte assessment; Natural Justice; Writ petition
• Section: 143(3); 271(1)(c); 274; 226(3)

Judgement Text

" - 1 - NC: 2024:KHC:35732 WP No. 23042 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 23042 OF 2024 (T-IT) BETWEEN: M/S ELEGANT BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS PARTNER, MR.M. SUBRAMANI S/O OF MR. MOTHULU, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS (SENIOR CITIZENS BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED) HAVING OFFICE AT No.34 10TH B MAIN, 3RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR III BLOCK, S.O., BANGALORE - 560 011. (UNDER REGISTERED INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932). …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANDEEP HUILGOL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7(1) (1), BANGALORE BMTC BUILDING, 80 FT ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU - 560 095. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7(2)(1), BANGALORE BMTC BUILDING, 80 FT ROAD 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU - 560 095. 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX (APPEALS) NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT ROOM No.245-A, NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI -110 001. Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:35732 WP No. 23042 of 2024 4. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, BENGALURU BMTC BUILDING, 80 FT ROAD 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU - 560 095. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI E I SANMATHI, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED BANK ATTACHMENT NOTICE DATED 28.06.2024 BEARING DIN AND LETTER No.ITBA/COM/F/17/2024- 25/1066172554(1) ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 226(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 TO BANK OF BARODA (ANNEXURE-A1) AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs: \"(i) Quashing the impugned bank Attachment notice dated 28.06.2024 bearing din and letter No. ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-25/1066172554(1) issued by the 1st respondent under Section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to Bank of Baroda (Annexure-'a- 1'); (ii) Quashing the impugned bank Attachment notice dated 28.06.2024 bearing ITBA/COM/F/17/2024- 25/1066172256(1) issued by the 1st respondent under the Income-tax Act, 1961 to State Bank of India (Annexure-A2); (iii) Quashing the impugned bank Attachment notice dated 28.06.2024 bearing ITBA/COM/F/17/2024- - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:35732 WP No. 23042 of 2024 25/1066170945(1) issued by the 1st respondent under Section 226(3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 to Canara Bank (Annexure-'A-3'); (iv) Quashing the impugned Bank Attachment notice dated 28.06.2024 bearing ITBA/COM/F/17/2024- 25/1066170650(1) issued by the 1st respondent under Section 226(3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 to Canara Bank (Annexure-A4); (v) Quashing the impugned Assessment order dated 22.12.2018 bearing order No. ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2018- 19/1014493407(1) passed by the 2nd respondent under Section 143(3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2016- 17 (Annexure 'S-1'); (vi) Quashing the impugned computation sheet dated 22.12.2018 bearing Document No. ITBA/AST/S/115/2018- 19/1014493422(1) issued by the 2nd respondent for the Assessment year 2016-17 (Annexure 'S-2'); (vii) Quashing the impugned notice of demand dated 22.12.2018 bearing notice No. ITBA/AST/S/156/2018- 19/1014493431(1) issued by the 2nd respondent for the Assessment year 2016-17 (Annexure 'S-3'); (viii) Quashing the impugned show cause notice for penalty dated 22.12.2018 bearing notice No. ITBA/PNL/S/271(1)(c)/2018-19/1014493437(1)issued by Respondent No. 2 under Section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment year 2016-17 (Annexure-V); (ix) In the alternative to the paras (v) to (vii) above, permitting the Petitioner to file an appeal against impugned assessment order dated 22.12.2018 bearing order no. itba/ast/s/143(3)/2018- 19/1014493407(1) passed by the 2nd Respondent under section 143(3) of the Income- Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment year 2016-17 (Annexure 'S-1') before respondent No.3 or the concerned appellate authority, and directing the said first appellate authority to - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:35732 WP No. 23042 of 2024 consider the appeal on merits without raising the issue of limitation, and to then dispose off the said appeal at the earliest and in accordance with law; and (x) Pass such order or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interests of justice and equity.\" 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that subsequent to the petitioner submitting his response on 10.12.2018 to the notice dated 29.10.2018 issued by respondent No.1, the petitioner was not subsequently notified about the proceedings and could not address the same, which culminated in the impugned assessment order dated 22.12.2018. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that it was not aware of the aforesaid impugned assessment order till there was an attachment of his Bank accounts on 28.06.2024, pursuant to which the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition 4. It is submitted that apart from the fact that the impugned assessment order is an exparte assessment order, which was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and without providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:35732 WP No. 23042 of 2024 petitioner, the impugned assessment order is neither digitally signed nor physically signed nor the same is served on the petitioner and in the light of the judgment of this Court in the case of Begur Sinappa Venkatesh Vs. The Income Tax Officer and another passed in W.P.No.20807/2023, which was followed by this Court in the case of Sri.Narayanappa Gangadhar Vs. Income Tax Officer and Ors, the aforesaid impugned assessment order is illegal and the same deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that it is necessary to provide one more opportunity to the petitioner by setting aside the impugned assessment order and remitting back the matter to respondent No.1 for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 would support the impugned order and submit that notices were uploaded by the respondent in e-portal and the petitioner was aware of the same and also submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. A perusal of the impugned assessment order dated 22.12.2018 will indicate that apart from the fact that the same is neither digitally signed nor physically signed, the same is - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:35732 WP No. 23042 of 2024 undisputedly exparte assessment order, which is passed without petitioner contesting in the proceedings. 7. Under these circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned assessment order and consequential proceedings, orders, notices, etc., and remit the matter back to respondent No.1 for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. 8. In the result, I pass the following: (i) The petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned Assessment Order at Annexure - S1 dated 22.12.2018, Computation Sheet at Annexure - S2 dated 22.12.2018, Notice of Demand at Annexure - S3 dated 22.12.2018, Show Cause Notice for Penalty at Annexure - V dated 22.12.2018, Bank Attachment Notice at Annexure - A1 dated 28.06.2024, Bank Attachment Notice at Annexure - A2 dated 28.06.2024, Bank Attachment Notice at Annexure - A3 dated 28.06.2024 and Bank Attachment - 7 - NC: 2024:KHC:35732 WP No. 23042 of 2024 Notice at Annexure - A4 dated 28.06.2024 are hereby quashed. (iii) The matter is remitted back to respondent No.1 for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. (iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit replies, responses, pleadings, documents, etc., to the respondent, who shall consider the same by providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and proceed further in accordance with law. (v) Petitioner is directed to deposit Rs.50 Lakhs before respondent No.1 within a period of four weeks from today; It is needless to state that the amount deposited by the petitioner would be subject to the final outcome of the proceedings before respondent No.1. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MDS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18 "