Sandeep Muniraj Reddy V. The Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1)(1) and National Faceless Assessment Centre and The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1

WP/14723/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Sandeep Muniraj Reddy, the petitioner, who challenged the validity of several notices and orders issued by the Income Tax Department concerning the assessment year 2018-19. The petitioner argued that due to an outdated email ID, he was unable to respond to the initial notice under Section 148-A(b), leading to subsequent orders and notices being issued without his participation. The court found merit in the petitioner's argument, noting that the petitioner had indeed filed returns, albeit defectively, and that the assessing authority had overlooked these filings. Consequently, the court set aside the subsequent orders and notices and remitted the matter back for a proper hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 796612 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 03-07-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: M DILIP
• Assessee Lawyers: RAVISHANKAR
• Keywords: Assessment year 2018-19; Capital Gains; Email ID update; Income Tax; Notice Quashing; Defective Returns
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 144B; 148(A)(b); 148 A (d)

Judgement Text

" - 1 - NC: 2024:KHC:25044 WP No. 14723 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 14723 OF 2024 (T-IT) BETWEEN: 1. SANDEEP MUNIRAJ REDDY 33 YEARS NO.44, \"DODDA MANE\" DODDA APPAYANNA REDDY LAYOUT DODDA BANASWADI BANGALORE - 560 045 PAN: BZYPM2990K PREVIOUSLY AT: SANDEEP MUNIRAJ REDDY MUNIRAJ REDDY BUILDING BODDA MANE DODDA APPAYANA REDDY LAYOUT DODDA BANASH BANGALORE - 560 043 … PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVI SHANKAR S V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1)(1) BANGALORE - 560 095 2. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:25044 WP No. 14723 of 2024 INCOME TAX OFFICER INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT MINISTRY OF FINANCE ROOM NO. 401, 2ND FLOOR, E -RAMP JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM DELHI - 110 003 3. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIOENR OF INCOME TAX-1 THE OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 BMTC BUILDING KORAMANGALA BANGALORE - 560 095 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. DILIP, JUNIOR STANDING COUNSEL) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO I) QUASHING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148(B) OF THE ACT, DATED 2203/2022 BEARING DIN NO.ITBA/AST/F/148A(SCN)/2021- 22/1041244477(1), ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19 HEREIN MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Petitioner has called in question the validity of the notice under Section 148-A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') at Annexure-A; order under - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:25044 WP No. 14723 of 2024 Section 148-A(d) of the Act at Annexure-A1; notice under Section 148 of the Act at Annexure-A2; order passed under Section 147 read with Sections 144, 144B of the Act at Annexure-A3 and the penalty notices at Annexures-A4 and A5. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that though the notice under Section 148-A(b) was issued, the petitioner could not reply as the email-ID of the assessee was not updated and it stood changed from the earlier one as was available with the Department. It is submitted that consequently, the order passed under Section 148-A(d) and other proceedings pursuant thereto have culminated without the participation of the petitioner. 3. It is pointed out that on merits as well, the assessing authority at Para No. 3.2 of the order at Annexure-A3 has observed that returns have not been filed, while the petitioner in effect has filed the returns as is evidenced at Annexures-B and C though subsequently, it was found out that the same were defective. Even - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:25044 WP No. 14723 of 2024 otherwise, it is stated that though the details of computation of capital gains having been made as noticed by the assessing officer, the same ought to have been taken note of in an appropriate manner. 4. Taking note of the submission made and having prima facie perused the calculation sheet, case is made out for affording an opportunity to the petitioner to make out his reply to the notice under Section 148-A(b)of the Act at Annexure-A and to permit the authorities to proceed therefrom. 5. Accordingly, the order under Section 148-A(d) of the Act at Annexure-A1; notice under Section 148 of the Act at Annexure-A2; order passed under Section 147 read with Sections 144, 144B of the Act at Annexure-A3 and the penalty notices at Annexures-A4 and A5 are set aside. The matter is remitted back to the stage of reply to the notice under Section 148-A(b) of the Act at Annexure-A. All contentions on merits are kept open. - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:25044 WP No. 14723 of 2024 6. Writ petition is accordingly disposed off. Sd/- JUDGE VP "