RUDRAPPA S/O. BASAVARAJ WALI V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD NO-2

WP/105048/2021

AI Insights

The case involves Rudrappa, the petitioner, who challenged an ex-parte assessment order issued by the Income Tax Officer, Bagalkote. The petitioner argued that he was not given an opportunity to be heard, which is a mandatory requirement under the principles of natural justice. The Income Tax Officer contended that multiple notices were sent to the petitioner, who failed to respond, leading to the ex-parte order. However, the court noted that the period in question coincided with a nationwide lockdown due to COVID-19, which could have affected the petitioner's ability to respond. Consequently, the court decided to quash the ex-parte order and remand the case for a hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 695534 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 21-12-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: Y V RAVIRAJ
• Assessee Lawyers: H R KAMBIYAVAR
• Keywords: Ex-parte assessment order; Natural Justice; Opportunity of Hearing; Writ of Certiorari
• Section: 144; 142(1); 143(2); 226; 129; 227

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA W.P.No.105048/2021 (T-IT) BETWEEN RUDRAPPA S/O. BASAVARAJ WALI AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, SIDRAMESHWARA NAGARA, FLOUR MILL JAMKANDI, BANAHATTI-587313, ...PETITIONER (BY SRI.H R KAMBIYAVAR, ADV.) AND 1 . THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO-2 SECTOR NO. 24, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOTE. 2 . GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE BELAGAVI …..RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.Y.V.RAVIRAJ, ADV.) : 2 : THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO I) ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR WRIT IN THE LIKE NATURE OF QUASHING THE IMPUGNED AN EX-PARTE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1, DATED 17/08/2021, PASSED IN DIN AND ORDER NO.ITBA/ AST/ S/ 144/ 2021-22/ 1034938404(1), PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1, VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING B-GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER 1. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that he was not granted an opportunity of hearing and the said order is required to be quashed as it was in violation of the mandatory requirement. 2. In the impugned order, the Assessing Authority has stated as follows: “3. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS as per the Board's guideline compulsory scrutiny selection for survey u/s133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 02-11-2020, which was served on the assessee by mail and registered post. Further, the case is centralized by the Pr. Commissioner of income tax, Hubballi vide Notification uls 127 in F.No.127/PR.CIT-HBL/2020-21 dated 08-02-2021. 4.1 As there was a change in incumbent, notice u/s129 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 alongwith Notice u/s142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued electronically on 22-03-2021 alongwith detailed questionnaire calling for information. There was no response to the same. Further, notice u/s. 142(1) of the of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued : 3 : electronically again on 15-07-2021 calling for information and posting the case for hearing for which also, there was no response. All the above notices u/s. 142(1) were also sent electronically at the e-mail address of the assessee. 4.2 All this behaviour of the assessee constrained the assessment proceedings to be concluded exparte u/s 144 the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, in consideration of the issues involved and in the interest of natural justice, a final opportunity was issued to the assessee on 11-08-2021 providing the details of the incomes to be added back in the assessment and requesting to furnish the evidences and to show cause why the assessment should not concluded ex parte u/s. 144 the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the basis of the information available on record. These show cause notices was also served on the assessee by electronic mode at the email address of the assessee and proposed the line of action being taken, in concluding the asst. proceedings considering the fact that, there is no co-operation from the assessee. This final opportunity also did not evoke any response from the assessee. The non-compliance by the assessee to statutory notices clearly show that reasonable, speaking and fullest natural justice has been followed in the instant case, but it is the assessee who has not availed any chances for the reasons best known to him. Therefore, the bar of 'natural justice' has been breached by the assessee for the reasons known to him and thereby compelling the conclusion of the proceedings, exparte u/s 144 the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 3. The order does not indicate that an enquiry was conducted or that a hearing was granted to the petitioner. This position is also not disputed by Sri. Y. R. Raviraj. 4. It is to be noticed here that the period mentioned in the impugned order relates to the period when the entire nation was subject to a lock-down. Having regard to the fact : 4 : that the petitioner is only seeking an opportunity of hearing, in my view, it would be just necessary to grant him an opportunity of hearing. 5. I therefore, quash the impugned orders and direct the Assessing Authority to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass a fresh order. 6. Writ petition is accordingly allowed. 7. It is needless to state that all the contentions available to the petitioner can be raised before the Assessing Authority. Sd/- JUDGE KGK "