Rakshith Jagannath Perikal V. Assessment Unit National Faceless Assessment Center, Delhi

WP/8287/2023

AI Insights

In this writ petition, the petitioner, Rakshith Jagannath Perikal, challenged an assessment order under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, which added an amount of Rs.67,67,000 to his total income. The petitioner argued that his explanations for the source of this fund were not fully considered by the assessing officer and that there was a technical glitch during the video conference hearing, preventing a complete and fair hearing. The court agreed that the petitioner's explanations were not adequately considered and noted the technical glitch as a violation of natural justice, leading to the decision to remand the case for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 820290 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 13-07-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: E I SANMATHI
• Assessee Lawyers: CHANDRASHEKAR; KASHINATH KALMATH
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Natural Justice; Technical glitch; Video Conference; Writ of Certiorari
• Section: 147; 133(6); 144B; 226; 227

Judgement Text

" - 1 - NC: 2023:KHC:24271 WP No. 8287 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JULY, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 8287 OF 2023 (T-IT) BETWEEN: 1. RAKSHITH JAGANNATH PERIKAL SO JAGANNATH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS NO.1875, 31ST CROSS, 9TH MAIN ROAD, 2ND STAGE, B T M LAYOUT BANGALORE - 560 070 … PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR R., ADVOCATE AND SRI KASHINATH KALMATH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI RAMA MURTHY R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ASSESSMENT UNIT NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTER, DELHI - 110 001 … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DTD 27.03.2023 DIN: ITBA /AST/S/147/2022-23/1051356256(1) MADE U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B OF THE ACT (ANNEXURE-K) TO THIS WRIT PETITION AND ETC. Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2023:KHC:24271 WP No. 8287 of 2023 THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the assessment order dated 27.03.2023 made under Section 147 read with Section 144-B of the Income Tax Act (for short 'the Act'). 2. The petitioner submits that during the course of assessment proceedings, insofar as the source of fund for Rs.1,08,20,000/-, petitioner's explanation was accepted partly. However, insofar as the amount of Rs.67,67,000/-, the explanation was not accepted and the said amount was added to the total income of the assessee. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that even as regards the sum of Rs.67,67,000/- was concerned, petitioner has taken a specific stand as reflected at Annexures-G2 and G3 in which it is specifically stated that insofar as Sri. B.M.Mallikarjunaiah is concerned, as he had informed that he would not share - 3 - NC: 2023:KHC:24271 WP No. 8287 of 2023 personal tax information as also in the case of M/s. Abhyudhaya Developers which had taken the same stand. It is submitted that the petitioner had made a request to the Authority to invoke power under Section 133(6) of the Act and obtain their confirmation. It is submitted that such power has not been invoked by the Authority and the Authority in the assessment proceedings has also observed that due to technical glitch, hearing was not completed. It is further submitted that insofar as the amount traceable to Sri. K.M.Srinivasa Murthy is concerned, confirmation was submitted which is part of Annexure-G2 which has not been taken note of. 4. Having gone through the assessment order, it is noticed that insofar as the amount of Rs.67,67,000/- is concerned, the assessing officer has not accepted the explanation of the assessee. Further, it is pointed out that on 21.03.2023, as there was some technical glitch in the video conference proceedings and no person attended for - 4 - NC: 2023:KHC:24271 WP No. 8287 of 2023 about 40 minutes and accordingly, it was taken that the assessee had nothing to offer as an explanation. 5. It is clear that the explanation of the petitioner at Annexures-G2 and G3 has not been considered in its entirety. Further there also appears to be violation of principles of natural justice insofar as the Authority itself records that there was technical glitch during the video conference hearing. Accordingly, case is made out for relegating the matter back for reconsideration before the assessing officer. 6. The assessing officer to reconsider the explanation of the petitioner relating to the source of funds with respect to the amount of Rs.67,67,000/- by taking note of the contentions raised and explanation made at Annexures-G2 and G3 and pass an order afresh after offering sufficient opportunity as is permissible in law. Accordingly, the order at Annexure-K is set aside and the matter is remanded for fresh consideration in light of the discussion made above. - 5 - NC: 2023:KHC:24271 WP No. 8287 of 2023 7. As regards the contention of the petitioner that insofar as Sri. B.M.Mallikarjunaiah and M/s. Abhyudhaya Developers, in light of the stand of such persons that they were not willing to strictly issue certificate of confirmation, the assessing officer is to take recourse to Section 133 (6) of the Act, is a matter to be examined by the Authority. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed off. Sd/- JUDGE VP "