MR. SURESH SHASTRY V. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 6

WP/14118/2021

AI Insights

The case involves a writ petition filed by Mr. Suresh Shastry and others against the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-6 Bengaluru and others, challenging the validity of a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment year 2016-17. The petitioners argued that the notifications extending the time limit for issuing such notices were ultra vires the Income Tax Act and the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. The court, referencing several precedents, agreed with the petitioners and quashed the notice, while allowing for the possibility of fresh reassessment under the amended Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 754121 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 19-04-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: ASHOK KUAR AGARWAL VS. UNION OF INDIA, BPIP INFRA (P.) LTD. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(1), JAIPUR, MON MOHAN KOHLI VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR., TATA COMMUNICATIONS TRANSFORMATION SERVICES LIMITED, VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 14(1) AND OTHERS
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K V ARAVIND
• Assessee Lawyers: S
• Keywords: Income Tax Act; Quashment of notice; Re-assessment proceeding; Taxation and Other Laws; Ultra Vires
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

"1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL 2022 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY W.P. No.14118 OF 2021 (T-IT) BETWEEN: 1. MR. SURESH SHASTRY AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, (SENIOR CITIZEN’S BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED) SON OF LATE SHIVARAMA SHASTRY ADDRESS AT 301, SOUNDARYA GARDENIA HMT MAIN ROAD, JALAHALLI BENGALURU-560 013. 2. MR. SATHISH SHASTRY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, SON OF LATE SHIVARAMA SHASTRY, ADDRESS AT ‘ANANDA’, KOTE POST OFFICE ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA-577 202. 3. MS. SUPRIYA SHASTRY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF SURESH SHASTRY, ADDRESS AT 301 SOUNDARYA GARDENIA HMT MAIN ROAD, JALAHALLI BENGALURU-560 013. (PETITIONER NOS, 2 AND 3 REPRESENTED HEREIN BY PETITIONER NO.1, THEIR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE) ... PETITIONERS 2 (BY MR. S. GANESH, SR. COUNSEL (V/C)FOR MR. SANDEEP HUILGOL, ADV.,) AND: 1. PRINCIPAL COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX-6 BENGALURU, BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE KORAMANGALA BENGALURU-560095. 2. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE MINSITRY OF FINANCE UNION OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI-110002 REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS CHAIRPERSON. 3. PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KARNATAKA AND GOA REGION GROUND FLOOR, CR BUILDING NO.1, QUEENS ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001. 4. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), CIRCLE 6(1)(1), BANGALORE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE KORAMANGALA BENGALURU-560095. ... RESPONDENTS (BY MR. K.V. ARAVIND, A/W MR. DILIP .M, ADVOCATES) - - - THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DTD 29.06.2021 ISSUED BY THE R-4 FOR AY 2017-18 BEARING DIN AND NOTICE NO. ITBA/AST/S/148/2021- 22/1033843861(1) UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, TO PETITIONER NO.1 VIDE ANNX-A-1 & ETC., 3 THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER The petitioner in this writ petition has sought quashment of explanation below Clause (A) in the notification bearing No.20/2021370142/35/2020-tl dated 31.03.2021 and notification No.38/2021f. No.370142/35/2020-TPL dated 27.04.2021 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes, as ultra vires the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1961 Act’ for short) and the provisions of Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as ‘2020 Act’ for short). The petitioner has also prayed for relief that extension of time limit by the 2020 Act does not apply to notices issued under erstwhile Section 148 of the 1961 Act, after 01.04.2021. The petitioner also seeks a writ of 4 certiorari for quashing the notice dated 29.06.2021 issued under Section 148 of the 1961 Act for the Assessment year 2016-17. 2. We have heard the learned counsel at length. For the reasons assigned by us in the judgment dated 19.04.2022 passed in W.P.No.22348/2021 and for the reasons assigned by division bench of High Court of Allahabad in ASHOK KUAR AGARWAL VS. UNION OF INDIA’, Rajasthan High Court in ‘BPIP INFRA (P.) LTD. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(1), JAIPUR, Delhi High Court decision in MON MOHAN KOHLI VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. And decision of Bombay High Court in TATA COMMUNICATIONS TRANSFORMATION SERVICES LIMITED, VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 14(1) AND OTHERS, W.P.NO.1334/2021, the explanation below Clause 5 (A) in the notification bearing No.20/2021370142/35/2020-tl dated 31.03.2021 and notification No.38/2021f. No.370142/35/2020- TPL dated 27.04.2021 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes is hereby declared as ultra vires the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 and the provisions of Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. The impugned notice dated 30.06.2021 issued under Section 148 of the Act is quashed. 3. However, it will be open to the Assessing Officer concerned to initiate fresh re-assessment proceeding in accordance with relevant provisions of the 1961 Act as amended by Finance Act, 2021 after strictly complying with the provisions of the Act. 6 In the result, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE SS "