Muniswamappa Jayaram V. The Income Tax Officer Ward-3(2)(1)

WP/14712/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Muniswamappa Jayaram, the petitioner, challenging notices and an order issued by the Income Tax Officer for the assessment year 2017-2018 under various clauses of Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that his detailed explanations and computations regarding cash deposits were not considered in the impugned order, which led to the filing of this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The court found that the petitioner's explanations were indeed not considered and thus set aside the order, remitting the matter for fresh consideration.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 810665 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 19-06-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: THIRUMALESH
• Assessee Lawyers: RAMA MURTHY
• Keywords: Assessment Year 2017-2018; Cash deposits; Income computation; Income Tax; Notice Quashing; Order Quashing
• Section: 148; 148A(b); 148A(d); 226; 227

Judgement Text

" - 1 - NC: 2024:KHC:21935 WP No. 14712 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 14712 OF 2024 (T-IT) BETWEEN: 1. MUNISWAMAPPA JAYARAM S/O. MUNISWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.28, SRI VENKATESHA NILAYA, MUNISWAMAPPA GARDEN, CHUNCHAGHATTA, BANGALORE-560 062. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAMA MURTHY R.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(2)(1), BMTC BULDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560 095. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. THIRUMALESH M., ADVOCATE) *** THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO (A) QUASHING THE NOTICE DATED 08.03.2024 ISSUED U/S 148A(B) OF THE ACT, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-2018 (ANNEXURE-A) (ITBA/AST/F/148A(SCN)2023-24/1062226028(1)) BY THE Digitally signed by VIDYA G R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:21935 WP No. 14712 of 2024 RESPONDENT; (B) QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 23.03.2024 MADE U/S 148A(D) OF THE ACT, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-2018 (ANNEXURE-C) [ITBA/AST/F/148A/2023- 24/1063245135(1)] PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT; (C) QUASHING THE NOTICE ISSUED R/S.148 OF THE ACT DATED 23.03.2024 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-2018 (ANNEXURE-D) [ITBA/AST/S/148_1/2023-24/1063245321(1)] ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER The petitioner has called in question the correctness of the order at Annexure-'C' dated 23.03.2024 passed under clause (d) of Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity) as well as the notice at Annexure-'A' dated 08.03.2024 issued under clause (b) of Section 148A of the Act. 2. It is submitted that insofar as notice issued under clause(b) of Section 148A of the Act, the petitioner had made out the reply, copy of the said reply is filed alongwith the memo before this Court. It is submitted that a detailed explanation has been made as regards the cash deposits. It is further submitted that the - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:21935 WP No. 14712 of 2024 computation of income was also made, which however has not been taken note of and the impugned order is passed under clause (d) of Section 148A of the Act. 3. Perused the impugned order at Annexure-'C' dated 23.03.2024. At para-6 of the order, it is observed as follows:- \"6. In response to the show cause notice the assessee filed a reply dated 18-03-2024. In reply, the assessee has not submitted any explanation/documents on transaction of Rs.73,24,975/-. The assessee has submitted only computation of income for A.Y.2017-18.\" 4. Insofar as the contention of petitioner regarding the reply, a perusal of the reply filed alongwith the memo would indicate that the petitioner has made an explanation, which however does not appear to have been taken note of or adverted to in the impugned order. It is the specific case of petitioner that, if his explanation would be taken note of, the amount assessable to tax would be - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:21935 WP No. 14712 of 2024 lesser than Rs.50.00 lakhs and accordingly, in terms of Section 149(1)(b), the question of passing an order under clause (d) of Section 148A would not arise. The said aspect requires reconsideration by the respondent Authority. 5. Note is made of the reply filed by the petitioner, as also the computation of total income and bank statements, copies of which are produced before this Court alongwith the memo which are stated to have been filed before the Assessing Officer. 6. Accordingly, the order at Annexure-'C' dated 23.03.2024 passed under clause (d) of Section 148A is set aside. The matter is remitted for reconsideration by the Authority who has to reconsider the reply of the petitioner and pass fresh order under clause (d) of Section 148A of the Act. The liberty is reserved to the petitioner to substantiate his case by producing further documents and - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:21935 WP No. 14712 of 2024 clarifications as may be deemed fit. All contentions are kept open. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off. Sd/- JUDGE VGR "