Raghavendra Muniswamy V. The Income Tax Officer WAR-2(1) and Assessment Unit Income Tax Department, Rep. by Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India

WP/14692/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Raghavendra Muniswamy, the petitioner, challenging several notices and orders issued by the Income Tax Department concerning the assessment year 2018-19. The primary contention was that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, did not comply with the statutory requirement of providing a minimum of seven days for the petitioner to respond. The court found that the petitioner was indeed prejudiced by the insufficient time provided to respond, leading to the setting aside of all related notices and orders. The court's decision emphasizes the importance of adhering to procedural mandates in legal notices and the rights of the assessee to a fair opportunity to respond.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 679867 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 25-06-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: M THIRUMALESH
• Assessee Lawyers: CHANDRASHEKAR
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Income Tax; Legal Procedure; Notice; Penalty notice
• Section: 147; 148; 144B; 271AAC(1); 148A(b); 148A(d); 272A(1)(d); 226; 227

Judgement Text

" - 1 - NC: 2024:KHC:23401 WP No. 14692 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 14692 OF 2024 (T-IT) BETWEEN: 1. RAGHAVENDRA MUNISWAMY S/O. MUNISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 2/A, GRAMADEVATHA CROSS, CHICKMAVALLI, BANGALORE-560 004. NOW AT: C/O. MADHAV NAIDU, KUMURI NARAYANAPURA, THALLI KATTE POST-577 277 BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIMOGGA DISTRICT. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR R., ADVOCATE FOR SRI RAMA MURTHY R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WAR-2(1), C.R. BUILDING, NAVANAGAR, HUBBALI-580 025. 2. ASSESSEMENT UNIT INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, REP. BY MINISTRY OF FINANCE, Digitally signed by VIDYA G R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:23401 WP No. 14692 of 2024 GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI-110 001. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. THIRUMALESH, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) QUASH THE NOTICES DATED 22/03/2022 ISSUED U/S 148A(b) OF THE ACT (ANNEXURE-A) (ITBA/AST/F/148A(SCN)/2021-22/1041249161 (1) ISSUED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19 BY THE R1 AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER The petitioner has challenged the notice at Annexure-'A' dated 22.03.2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity), the Order at Annexure-'B' dated 01.04.2022 passed under Section 148A(d), the notice at Annexure-'C' dated 01.04.2022 issued under Section 148, the Assessment Order at Annexure-'D' dated 24.11.2023 passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B, the order at Annexure-'F' dated 01.05.2024 passed under Section 271AAC(1), the penalty notice at Annexure-'G' - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:23401 WP No. 14692 of 2024 dated 01.05.2024 issued under Section 272A(1)(d) of the Act. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the notice under Section 148A(b) is issued on 22.03.2022 calling upon the petitioner to make out a reply on or before 25.03.2022, which time that is afforded to the petitioner to make out a reply is contrary to the statutory mandate under Section 148A(b) which provides a period of not less than seven days which is to be afforded to make out a reply. The details regarding the date of issuance of notice and time afforded to make out the reply, are matters of record. 3. Section 148A(b) of the Act reads as follows:- \"148A. The Assessing Officer shall, before issuing any notice under section 148.- (a) xxx (b) Provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, by serving upon him a notice to show cause within such time, as may be specified in the notice, being not less than seven days and but not exceeding thirty days from the date on - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:23401 WP No. 14692 of 2024 which such notice is issued, or such time, as may be extended by him on the basis of an application in this behalf, as to why a notice under section 148 should not be issued on the basis of information which suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in his case for the relevant assessment year and results of enquiry conducted, if any, as per clause (a); In light of the same, the time afforded to the petitioner to make out a reply is contrary to the statutory mandate and accordingly, the assertion of learned counsel that the petitioner has been prejudiced by the time prescribed in the notice, requires acceptance. 4. Accordingly, the notice at Annexure-'A' dated 22.03.2022, the Order at Annexure-'B' dated 01.04.2022, the notice at Annexure-'C' dated 01.04.2022, the Assessment Order at Annexure-'D' dated 24.11.2023, the order at Annexure-'F' dated 01.05.2024, the penalty notice at Annexure-'G' dated 01.05.2024 are set aside. - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:23401 WP No. 14692 of 2024 5. However, liberty is reserved to the Revenue to take appropriate action as regards the subject matter of notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act, as is permissible in law. All contentions are kept open. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off. Sd/- JUDGE VGR "