MR. SAREMAL JAIN V. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF

WP/24631/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Mr. Saremala Jain, the petitioner, who challenged several orders related to income tax assessments and penalties for the assessment year 2017-18. The petitioner sought to quash the orders issued by the Income Tax Officer and the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, citing health issues that prevented him from responding to the notices and appearing before the authorities. The High Court found that the revisional authority had not adequately considered the petitioner's health-related inability to respond, leading to a decision to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter for fresh consideration.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 742590 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 06-02-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: M DILIP
• Assessee Lawyers: NARENDRA J JAIN
• Keywords: Certiorari; Certiorari; Coercive Steps; Hospitalization; Income Tax; Non-speaking order; Revision petition; Recovery of Disputed Tax
• Section: 144; 274; 264; 271F; 271AAC(1); 226; 227

Judgement Text

" - 1 - NC: 2024:KHC:5095 WP No. 24631 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 24631 OF 2023 (T-IT) BETWEEN: MR. SAREMAL JAIN S/O LATE MOOLCHAND JAIN AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, NO.1029, 6TH CROSS, ASHOK NAGAR, BANASHANKARI 1ST STAGE BENGALURU-560 050. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NARENDRA KUMAR. J.JAIN.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE PRINCIAPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BENGALURU -2, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU-560 095. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2) (5) BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD , KORAMANGALA BENGALURU-560 095. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.M.DILIP.,ADVOCATE) THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH AS FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED BY AN APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR OTHERWISE THE IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE ITBA/REV/F/REV7/2021-22/1040507909(1) DTD 09/03/2022 ISSUED BY THE LEARNED R-1 UNDER SEC 264 FOR AY 2017-18 ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-A. Digitally signed by VANDANA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:5095 WP No. 24631 of 2023 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER In this petition, petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:- “ A. Quash as far as the petitioner is concerned by an appropriate writ or order in the nature of Certiorari or otherwise the impugned order vide ITBA/REV/F/REV7/2021-22/1040507909(1), dated: 09.03.2022 issued by the Learned First Respondent under Section 264 for AY 2017-8 enclosed as Annexure-A. B. Quash as far as the petitioner is concerned by an appropriate writ or order in the nature of Certiorari or otherwise the impugned assessment order under Section 144 dated: 21.10.2019 vide ITBA/AST/S/144/2019- 20/1099634333(1) passed By the Learned Second Respondent for AY 2017-18 enclosed as Annexure-B. C. Quash as far as the petitioner is concerned by an appropriate writ or order in the nature of Certiorari or otherwise the impugned Demand Notice vide ITBA/AST/S/56/2019-20/1019163509(1) dated: 2.10.2019 for the payment of tax so assessed by the Learned Second Respondent for the AY 2017-18, enclosed in Annexure-C. D. Quash as far as the petitioner is concerned by an appropriate writ or order in the nature of Certiorari or otherwise the impugned Penalty Notice under Section 274 read with section 271AAC(1) of the Act vide ITBA/PNL/S/271AAC(1)/2019-20/1019183506(1) dated 21.10.2019 for levy of penalty under section 271AAC(1) - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:5095 WP No. 24631 of 2023 by the learned Second Respondent for the Ay 2017-18, enclosed in Annexure D. E. Quash as far as the petitioner is concerned by an appropriate writ or order in the nature of Certiorari or otherwise the impugned Penalty Notice under Section 274 read with section 271F of the Act ITBA/PNL/F/271f/2021- 22/1032775887(1) dated 04.05.2021 for levy of penalty under section 271F by the learned Second Respondent for the Ay 2017-18, enclosed in Annexure E. F. Direct the Learned First Respondent to reconsider the application filed by the Petitioner dated 19.11.2020 enclosed as Annexure-J under section 364 of the Act on merits afresh. G. Direct the Learned First and Second Respondent by an appropriate writ or Order in the nature of Mandamus or otherwise, not to take any coercive steps towards recovery of the disputed tax as stated in demand Notice date 21.10.2019 issued by Second Respondent enclosed as Annexure C and lift the attachment of Bank accounts of the Petitioner as per Letter dated 30.01.2020 enclosed as Annexure-N vide Din No.ITBA/COM/F/17/2019- 20/1024448282(1) issued by Learned Second Respondent. H. Grant such other reliefs as this Honourable High Court may think fit including the cost of this writ petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:5095 WP No. 24631 of 2023 3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the impugned order at Annexure-A dated 09.03.2022 passed under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the I.T.Act’) in order to contend that despite the petitioner placing sufficient material before the 1st respondent – revisionall authority as regards his explanation in not appearing before the 2nd respondent and submitting his response, the 1st respondent – revisional authority has summarily dismissed the revision petition by non-speaking and unreasoned order, without considering the explanation offered by the petitioner and this has resulted in erroneous conclusion. It is submitted that the petitioner was suffering from Heart and Kidney ailments requiring hospitalization as evident from Annexure-G – the Hospital records, which would clearly establish that the petitioner was not in a position to file his response / objections before the 2nd respondent and contest the proceedings. It is therefore submitted that the impugned order at Annexure-A passed by the 1st respondent dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the reivisional authority, who shall decide the same in accordance with law. - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:5095 WP No. 24631 of 2023 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for petitioner, a perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the 1st respondent has summarily rejected the revision petition on the ground that the petitioner had not produced evidence to substantiate the income declared and not explained the source of cash deposits. However, despite the specific contentions / grounds urged by the petitioner before the 1st respondent, his inability and omission to appear before the 2nd respondent and file his response / objections etc., was due to hospitalization on account of heart and kidney ailments and due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, the said contention / aspect has not been considered by the 1st respondent – revisional authority and consequently, the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent deserves to be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the 1st respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:5095 WP No. 24631 of 2023 6. In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER (i) Petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned order at Annexure-A dated 09.03.2022 passed by the 1st respondent is hereby set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted back to the 1st respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. (iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to produce additional pleadings, documents etc., before the 1st respondent, who shall consider the same and dispose of the revision petition in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- JUDGE Srl. "