Ms. Sreenivasa Bhavana V. The Income Tax Officer Ward 6(2)(1), Bangalore and Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6(2)(1), Bangalore

WP/23044/2024

AI Insights

In this case, Ms. Sreenivasa Bhavana filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the Income Tax Officer and the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, challenging various orders and notices related to her income tax assessments for the years 2018-19 and 2019-20. The petitioner argued that the orders were unreasoned and that she was not given adequate opportunity to respond to the notices, which she claimed violated the principles of natural justice. The court examined the procedural aspects of how the notices were served and whether the petitioner was given a fair chance to contest the assessments. After considering the arguments and the material on record, the court decided to set aside the assessment order and remand the case for fresh consideration, emphasizing the need for adherence to natural justice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 795257 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 28-08-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: SYED KHAMRUDDIN; ALOK MADAPPA; MARA JOSEPH
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Income Tax; Natural Justice; Show cause notice; Writ petition
• Section: 143(3); 142(1)

Judgement Text

" - 1 - NC: 2024:KHC:34899 WP No. 23044 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 23044 OF 2024 (T-IT) BETWEEN: MS. SREENIVASA BHAVANA, D/O NARAYANASETTY SRINIVASA, AGED BOUT 29 YEARS, RESIDING NO. 208, 2ND MAIN ROAD, MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA-560 086. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SYED KHAMRUDDIN, ADVOCATE SRI. ALOK MADAPPA, ADVOCATE AND SRI. MARA JOSEPH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(2)(1), BANGALORE BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE KARNATAKA-560 095. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6(2)(1), BANGALORE BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE KARNATAKA-560 095. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER BEARING NO. ITBA/PNL/F/271/(1)(C)/2019-20/1016567966(1) DTD. 28.06.2019 (ANNX- A) AND QUASH SHOW CAUSE NOTICE BEARING NO. ITBA/PNL/S/271(1)(C)/2019-20/1016290127(1) DTD. 30.12.2018 (ANNX-B) AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by LEELAVATHI S R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:34899 WP No. 23044 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “i. Issue as Writ/ Direction/ Order in the nature of Certiorari, quashing the Order bearing No. ITBA/PNL/F/271/(1)(C)/2019-20/1016567966(1) dated 28.06.2019 (Annexure-A). ii. Issue as Writ/ Direction/ Order in the nature of Certiorari, quashing Show Cause Notice bearing No. ITBA/PNL/S/271(1)(C)/2019-20/1016290127(1) dated 30.12.2018 (Annexure -B). iii. Issue as Writ/ Direction/ Order in the nature of Certiorari, quashing the Show Cause Notice bearing No. ITBA/PNL/S/271(1)(C)/2018-19/1014661554(1) dated 29.12.2018 (Annexure-C). iv. Issue as Writ/ Direction/ Order in the nature of Certiorari, quashing the Assessment Order bearing No. ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2018-19/1014661547(1) dated 30.12.2018 (Annexure-D). v. Issue as Writ/ Direction/ Order in the nature of Certiorari, quash the Show Cause Notice bearing No. ITBA/AST/F/143(3)(SCN)/2018-19/1014554796(1) dated 24.12.2018 (Annexure-E). vi. Pass such other or further order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interests of justice and equity.” - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:34899 WP No. 23044 of 2024 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 3. In addition to reiterating various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, the learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the impugned order in order to point out that apart from the fact that the same is un-reasoned and non-speaking order, the details as regards how and when the notice dated 05.10.2018 under Section 142[1] of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short, ‘the Act’] was allegedly served upon the petitioner are conspicuously absent in the impugned order and the second respondent has proceeded to pass the impugned order without providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to submit his reply along with the documents thereby violating principles of natural justice, and as such, the petitioner is before this Court by way of present petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo seeking to unconditionally withdraw the appeal filed by him before the first appellate Authority in relation to the impugned order. 5. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the second respondent has not stated the details as to the service of - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:34899 WP No. 23044 of 2024 notice upon the petitioner or as to whether the same was uploaded on the portal or sent to the registered e-mail ID of the petitioner. In the paragraph-1 of the impugned order, except stating that notice under section 142[1] of the Act was issued to the petitioner, the second respondent has not stated as to when the said notice was delivered/served upon the petitioner. 6. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned notice, proceedings culminating in the impugned order cannot be said to have been done after providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, thereby violating principles of natural justice and consequently, the impugned order deserves to be set aside by adopting justice oriented approach and to provide one more opportunity to the petitioner to submit his reply to the said notice under Section 142 of the Act and with a direction to the respondents to proceed further in accordance with law. However, it is to be stated that since indulgence is being shown in favour of the petitioner after a lapse of almost four years from the date of the impugned order, in the event, the second respondent passes an order against the petitioner after remand by virtue of this order, the second - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:34899 WP No. 23044 of 2024 respondent would be entitled to claim interest on the amount in terms of the Notice of Demand dated 28.06.2019 [Annexure-J]. 7. In the result, the following: ORDER [a] The petition is hereby allowed. [b] The impugned Assessment order dated 30.12.2019 [Annexure-F] of the second respondent is hereby set aside. [c] The matter is remitted back to the second respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. [d] Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit his response/reply along with the documents to the second respondent, who shall consider the same and proceed further, in accordance with law. [e] In the event, the second respondent does not accept the response/reply of the petitioner and passes an order against the petitioner, the second respondent would be entitled to claim interest on the amount in terms of the Notice of Demand dated 28.06.2019 [Annexure-J]. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE BMC: List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57 "