P and M Associates LLP V. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(2)(1) and The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle \\u2013 7(2)(1) and The Commissioner of Income Tax and The Commissioner of Income Tax-7

WP/4714/2020

AI Insights

The case involves P and M Associates LLP, a partnership firm engaged in transportation and trading of mill scale, challenging an ex-parte assessment order passed by the Income Tax Department. The petitioner argued that the assessment order was communicated to an incorrect email address, resulting in no opportunity to respond to the show cause notice or participate in the assessment proceedings. The court acknowledged the failure in communication and set aside the assessment order, directing the Assessing Officer to reconsider the case, ensuring the petitioner is given a fair opportunity to present their case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 805861 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 10-03-2020
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, Income Tax Rules
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: E I SANMATHI
• Assessee Lawyers: M V SESHACHALA
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Email Communication; Ex parte assessment; Fair opportunity; Income Tax; Writ petition
• Section: 143(3); 127(2)

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2020 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No. 4714/2020 (T-IT) Between: P and M Associates LLP No.78/6, Ground Floor, Sankarappa Garden, 8th Cross, Magadi Road, Bangalore 560 023. Rep. by its Partner Sri. Mukesh Chhajed … Petitioner (By Sri. M. V. Seshachala, Sr. Counsel for Sri. Aravind V. Chavan, Adv.) And: 1. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(2)(1), BMTC Building, 80 feet Road, Koramangala, Bengaluru 560 095. 2. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle – 7(2)(1), BMTC Building, 80 feet Road, Koramangala, Bengaluru 560 095. 2 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax BMTC Building, 80 feet Road, Koramangala, Bengaluru 560 095. 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax-7 BMTC Building, 80 feet Road, Koramangala, Bengaluru 560 095. … Respondents (Sri. E. I. Sanmathi, Adv.) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated 06.12.2019 passed by the 1st respondent bearing No.ITBA/AST/S/144/2019-20/1021774734(1) produced as Annexure-M and remand the mater back for fresh adjudication by giving the petitioner an opportunity to substantiate the claim in the return of income. This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the Court, made the following: ORDER Petitioner is stated to be a partnership firm carrying on the business of transportation and trading in mill scale (scrap of TMT Bars). Petitioner has registered the e-mail address for the purpose of communication. 3 2. The e-mail ID of the Chartered Accountant is ‘[e-mail]’ and the e-mail ID of the petitioner is ‘[e-mail]’. It is pointed out that the department has been communicating through the correct e-mail address as evidenced from the communication dated 01.01.2016, 29.10.2016, 26.10.2018 and 08.05.2019. It is further submitted that in terms of Rule 127(2) of the Income Tax Rules, address for communication would also be the address as found in the returns of income. Petitioner submits that the address that is shown in the returns of income for the assessment year 2017-18 is ‘[e-mail]’. The petitioner further submits that the portal account of the petitioner has been opened by the department in a wrong e-mail ID, ‘[e-mail]’. Petitioner submits that the income tax returns has been processed and refund generated has been again communicated to the wrong e-mail address and the e-mail sent has not 4 reached the recipient as per the result ‘invalid address’. Petitioner submits that the rectification of refund, however, has been communicated to the correct address. 3. It is submitted that after scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, notice as well as show cause notice were all issued to the address as registered in the portal account and consequent to which the notices sent to the wrong address remained unserved and in the absence of petitioner, ex-parte assessment order was passed and the ex-parte assessment order was also communicated to the wrong e-mail ID. 4. Hence, the petitioner has challenged the assessment order on the ground that the assessment order needs to be set aside as there is no deemed notice in terms of the requirement under Rule 127(2) and that he had no notice and hence, no opportunity has been 5 afforded to reply to the show cause notice or participate in the assessment proceedings. 5. The facts referred to above would indicate that the petitioner has not been granted a fair opportunity to participate in the proceedings. In light of the said admitted facts, which have not been controverted, the assessment order for the year 2017-18 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration. All contentions of the petitioner are kept open. The petitioner to keep himself present before the Assessing Officer on 27.03.2020. Accordingly, petition is disposed off. Sd/- JUDGE VP "