Pragati Associates V. National Faceless Assessment Centre and Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & TPS and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax

WP/19131/2021

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Pragati Associates, represented by its partner Sri. U. Venkatesh Shet, who filed a writ petition against the assessment order passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (respondent No.1) for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The petitioner contended that the assessment order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as they were not given a sufficient opportunity to present their case. The petitioner argued that a scheduled video conferencing on 09.09.2021 failed due to a technical defect on the part of the respondents, which was communicated by the petitioner on the same day. Furthermore, the petitioner submitted relevant documents and objections on 15.09.2021, which were allegedly not considered by the respondents in their final order. The court, after hearing both parties, agreed with the petitioner's arguments and quashed the assessment order, remitting the matter back for fresh consideration.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 808609 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 18-11-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: E I SANMATHI
• Assessee Lawyers: M V SESHACHALA; ARAVIND CHAVAN
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Natural Justice; Technical defect; Video conferencing; Writ of Certiorari
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

" - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.19131/2021 (T-IT) BETWEEN: M/S. PRAGATI ASSOCIATES NO.9-4-89H1, GURUSHREE BUILDING, MARUTHI VEETHIKA, UDUPI - 576 101. REP. BY ITS PARTNER, SRI. U. VENKATESH SHET …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.V. SESHACHALA, SR. COUNSEL SRI. ARAVIND V. CHAVAN, ADV.) AND: 1 . ASSESSING OFFICER NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NO.412-413, 1ST FLOOR, OPP. METRO PILLER NO.793 DWARKA MOR, NEW DELHI - 110 059 2 . JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MALPE ROAD, ADI UDUPI, AMBALPADY, UDUPI - 576 103 3 . PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, EDC COMPLEX, PATTO-PLAZA, PANAJI, GOA - 403 521 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 17.09.2021 PASSED BY THE R1 ANNEXURE-J FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING-INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- - 2 - ORDER In this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned Assessment Order dated 17.09.2021 at Annexure-J passed by respondent No.1 for Assessment Year 2018-19 and for other reliefs as under: \"a. Issue a Writ of certiorari to quash the assessment order dated 17.09.2021 passed by the first respondent bearing No.ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2021- 22/1035692337(1) Annexure-J for the Assessment Year 2018-19. b. Issue such other Writ or direction as this Hon'ble Court deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the present case.\" 2. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the material on record. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, in addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the documents produced by the petitioner, submits that the assessment order is in violation of principles of natural justice and no reasonable or sufficient opportunity was provided to the petitioner before passing the said impugned order. In this context, learned Senior Counsel in - 3 - addition to inviting my attention to correspondence between the petitioner and respondent up to 07.09.2021 in order to point out that the petitioner was not able to attend proceedings through video conferencing, submits that on 07.09.2021, respondents called upon the petitioner to appear for the purpose of proceedings on 09.09.2021 through video conferencing. It is submitted that a perusal of Annexure-G dated 09.09.2021 will clearly indicate the inability and omission on the part of the petitioner to appear through video conferencing was on account of technical defect on part of the respondents and not on the account of any default or negligence on the part of the petitioner. 4. Secondly, it is contended that subsequently on 13.09.2021, respondent No.1 intimated the petitioner that they were given final opportunity up to 15.09.2021 to make all the submissions in support of their claims, pursuant to which, the petitioner submitted representation at Annexure-H3 dated 15.09.2021 along with all relevant documents, which have not been considered or appreciated by respondent No.1 before passing the impugned assessment order; on the other hand, respondent No.1 has come to the erroneous conclusion that the - 4 - petitioner has not submitted any replies or documents to the aforesaid communication dated 13.09.2021 and this has resulted in erroneous conclusion. It is therefore submitted that impugned assessment order is not only contrary to the principles of natural justice but also to the material on record and the same deserves to be quashed. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that despite that the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner is just and proper and the same does not warrant interference by this Court in the present petition. 6. As rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, perusal of Annexure-G and the screen shot enclosed along with the same will indicate that though the petitioner made all efforts to attend the video conferencing on 09.09.2021 as intimated to him by respondents on 07.09.2021, he was unable to do so on account of technical defect, since the video conferencing host did not start the meeting at all on that day and this fact has been communicated by the petitioner to the respondents on the very same day. It is therefore clear that - 5 - the inability and omission on the part of the petitioner to attend the video conferencing on 09.09.2021 was on account of technical defect on the part of the respondents and the same cannot be attributed to any delay or negligence on the part of the petitioner and consequently, the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 holding that the petitioner did not attend the video conferencing said to have been conducted on 09.09.2021 is erroneous and contrary to the material on record and the same deserves to be set aside. 7. So also, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is correct in his submission that pursuant to the intimation dated 13.09.2021 addressed by respondent No.1 to the petitioner, calling upon the petitioner to make submissions on or before 15.09.2021, the petitioner has submitted detailed objections on 15.09.2021 at Annexure-H3 along with all relevant documents which neither been adverted to nor considered or appreciated by respondent No.1 in the impugned order, which is clearly violative of principles of natural justice and the same deserves to be quashed on this ground also. Under these circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits/de-merits of the rival contentions, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the - 6 - impugned assessment order at Annexure-J and remit the matter back to respondent No.1 for re-consideration afresh in accordance with law after affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner. 8. In the result, I pass the following order: a) Petition is allowed. b) Impugned assessment order dated 17.09.2021 at Annexure-J is hereby quashed. c) The matter is remitted back to respondent No.1 for re-consideration afresh in accordance with law after providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to submit the objections/additional objections along with documents/additional documents which shall be considered by respondent No.1 before passing appropriate orders. Sd/- JUDGE SMJ "