MRS KANCHAN AGARWAL V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP/2456/2019

AI Insights

In this case, Mrs. Kanchan Agarwal challenged the re-assessment order and the subsequent demand notice issued by the Income Tax Officer for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The petitioner argued that the re-assessment was conducted without providing sufficient opportunity to file objections to the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. The court found that the re-assessment was concluded hastily, without considering the preliminary objections filed by the petitioner after being provided the reasons for reopening the assessment. Consequently, the court set aside the re-assessment order and the demand notice, directing a re-evaluation of the case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 697541 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 25-04-2019
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: E I SANMATHI
• Assessee Lawyers: HARISH
• Keywords: Assessment Year 2013-14; Demand notice; Income Tax; Preliminary objections; Re-assessment
• Section: 147; 148; 143(3)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE: THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.2456/2019 (T – IT) BETWEEN: Mrs. KANCHAN AGARWAL W/O Mr. NATWAR AGARWAL AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT LAXMI ROAD, 8TH CROSS, SHANTI NAGAR BANGALORE-560 027 …PETITIONER (BY SRI HARISH V.S., ADV.) AND: THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 7 (2) (2), 3RD FLOOR, ROOM NO.320, BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA 80 FEET ROAD, BANGALORE-560 095 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI E.I.SANMATHI, ADV.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF REASSESSMENT PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) R/W SECTION 147 OF THE ACT, RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14, DATED NIL i.e., ANNEXURE-F AND THE CONSEQUENTIAL DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT, RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14, DATED 24.12.2018 i.e., ANNEXURE-G. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- 2 O R D E R The petitioner has challenged the re-assessment order passed by the respondent under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2013-14 and consequential demand notice issued by the respondent. 2. The petitioner has filed return of income on 31.07.2013 relating to the Assessment Year 2013-14. The assessment proceedings were concluded under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act for the Assessment Year in question. Subsequently notice was issued under Section 148 of the Act to reopen the assessment concluded. On the request made by the petitioner to furnish the reasons for reopening the assessment under Section 148 of the Act on 20.12.2018, reasons recorded were made available to the petitioner on 24.12.2018. Accordingly, preliminary 3 objections and explanations were filed by the petitioner on 27.12.2018. However, the re-assessment proceedings were concluded by the respondent on 24.12.2018. It is the grievance of the petitioner that no sufficient opportunity was provided to him to file the objections to the reasons recorded. The Assessing Officer proceeded to conclude the re-assessment proceedings without considering the preliminary objections filed on 27.12.2018. It is submitted that the re-assessment order impugned is not valid in the eye of law for passing the same sans disposing of the preliminary objections. 3. Learned counsel for the revenue justifying the impugned order submitted that re-assessment order was passed on 24.12.2018 prior to the preliminary objections submitted by the petitioner on 27.12.2018. It was further submitted that reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment under 4 Section 148 of the Act was made available to the petitioner on three times despite the same, no objections were filed. It is after passing of the re- assessment order on 24.12.2018 preliminary objections has been filed by the assessee. Hence, no fault can be found with the order impugned herein. 4. I have carefully considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 5. As could be seen from the records the petitioner has requested the Assessing Officer to furnish the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment related to the Assessment Year in question on 20.12.2018. The same has been furnished on 24.12.2018 and the preliminary objections were filed on 27.12.2018. If that being the position, the Assessing Officer ought to have provided some breathing time to the petitioner to furnish the objections and then to have 5 proceeded to conclude the re-assessment. On the day of furnishing the reasons recorded, the re-assessment order is said to have been passed. However, the copy of the re-assessment order made available before the court at Annexure-F to the writ petition does not bear the date of order. 6. In such circumstances, this court is of the considered view that the respondent Assessing Officer has proceeded to conclude the re-assessment in a hasty manner. The preliminary objections filed by the petitioner on 27.12.2018 remains unconsidered as such, the re-assessment order cannot be held to be justifiable. 7. Accordingly, the impugned re-assessment order at Annexure-F and the demand notice at Annexure-G are set-aside. The proceedings are restored to the file of the respondent-Assessing Officer to redo the assessment considering the preliminary objections 6 filed by the petitioner to the reasons recorded by the respondent as per Annexure-E to the writ petition dated 27.12.2018 and conclude the assessment thereafter in accordance with law in an expedite manner preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. With the aforesaid observations and directions, writ petition stands disposed off. Sd/- JUDGE Chs* CT-HR "