Ramachandra Harish Srinivasalu Chetty V. The Income Tax Officer Ward - 1 and Assessment Unit, Rep. by Ministry of Finance Income Tax Department, Government of India

WP/10081/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Ramachandra Harish Srinivasalu Chetty, the petitioner, who challenged the notices and subsequent orders issued by the Income Tax Department for the assessment year 2016-17. The petitioner argued that the notices issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were invalid as they provided only two days for a response instead of the minimum seven days required by law. The High Court of Karnataka agreed with the petitioner's contention, citing a violation of natural justice and the specific provisions of Section 148A(b). Consequently, all related notices and orders were set aside, although the court allowed for the possibility of reinitiating the proceedings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 812776 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 05-06-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: M DILIP
• Assessee Lawyers: RAMA MURTHY
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Income Tax; Jurisdiction; Natural Justice; Show cause notice
• Section: 148; 148A(b); 148A(d); 226; 227

Judgement Text

" - 1 - NC: 2024:KHC:19399 WP No. 10081 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 10081 OF 2024 (T-IT) BETWEEN: 1. RAMACHANDRA HARISH SRINIVASALU CHETTY, S/O R. SRINIVASALU CHETTY, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER, R. SRINIVASALU CHETTY, 'SRI HARIPRIYA', 1ST MAIN, II LEFT, ANJANI EXTENSION, OPP. ANJANI TALKIES CHINTAMANI - 563 125. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAMA MURTHY R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 1, B.B.ROAD, CHICKBALLAPURA - 562 101. 2. ASSESSMENT UNIT, REP. BY MINISTRY OF FINANCE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA NEW DELHI - 110 001. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. DILIP, JR. STANDING COUNSEL) Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:19399 WP No. 10081 of 2024 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICES DTD 14.03.2023 AND 17.03.2023 ISSUED U/S 148A(b) OF THE ACT (ANNEXURE-A AND A1) [ITBA/AST/F/148A(SCN)/2022-23/1050715415(1) AND ITBA/ AST/F/148A(SCN)/2022-23/1050882718(1)] ISSUED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17 BY THE R-1 ON THE GROUND OF NOT PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY AS REQUIRED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC 148A(b) OF THE ACT AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Petitioner has called in question the correctness of the notices issued under Section 148-A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') at Annexures-A and A1 issued for the assessment year 2016-17 as well as the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act at Annexure-B. Petitioner has also challenged the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act for the assessment year 2016-17 at Annexure-C as well as the assessment order dated 28.02.2024 at Annexure-D. 2. Petitioner submits that the very notice under Section 148A(b) being issued on 14.03.2023 calling for reply to be filed by 16.03.2023 is a notice in violation of - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:19399 WP No. 10081 of 2024 Section 148A(b), which provides that show cause notice must give time not less than 7 days for making out reply. It is submitted that on such sole ground, once the notice under section 148A(b) is issued in violation of principles of natural justice, insofar as time of 2 days having been granted to make out reply, all consequential proceedings would have to be set aside as the initiation of proceedings by notice at Annexure-A itself is bad in law. 3. It is further submitted that in light of non- affording of sufficient opportunity, petitioner was unable to participate in the proceedings and has been prejudiced and even otherwise, it is submitted that the order passed being one without jurisdiction, relief ought to be granted as prayed for. 4. Taking note of the legal position as emanating from Section 148A(b) of the Act, it is clear that there has been violation of principles of natural justice as well as the mandate under Section 148A(b) which provides that time - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:19399 WP No. 10081 of 2024 granted to reply under the show cause notice ought not to be less than 7 days. 5. Section 148-A(b) of the Act reads as hereunder: \"(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 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).\" 6. In light of the admitted fact that notice is issued on 14.03.2023 calling upon the petitioner to make out his reply by 16.03.2023, contention of the petitioner that he has been prejudiced by such short time period, requires to be accepted. 7. Accordingly, the notices at Annexures-A and A1 are set aside and consequentially, order under Section 148A(d) of the Act at Annexure-B, notice at Annexure-C as - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:19399 WP No. 10081 of 2024 well as the assessment order dated 28.02.2024 at Annexure-D are set aside. However, as regards the subject matter of notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act, liberty is reserved to the Authority to take appropriate steps to initiate fresh proceedings as is permissible under law. 8. In light of the above, petition is disposed off. Sd/- JUDGE VP "