M/S SHRI ANNAPURNA SALES AND SERVICES V. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER

WP/986/2022

AI Insights

In this case, M/s Shri Annapurna Sales and Services, represented by its proprietor Sri Sringeri Krishnamurthy Naveen Kumar, filed a writ petition against the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru, and the Income Tax Department National Faceless Assessment Center, Delhi. The petitioner sought to quash an assessment order and demand notice issued under sections 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, claiming that the order was passed without a personal hearing, thus violating the principles of natural justice. The court, acknowledging the lack of a personal hearing, set aside the impugned order and remitted the case for fresh consideration.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 727834 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 22-02-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SUSHAL TIWARI
• Assessee Lawyers: JINITA CHATTERJEE
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Income Tax; Natural Justice; Personal hearing; Writ of Certiorari; Writ of Mandamus; Writ of prohibition
• Section: 144; 144B

Judgement Text

" - 1 - NC: 2024:KHC:7753 WP No. 986 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 986 OF 2022 (T-IT) BETWEEN: M/S SHRI ANNAPURNA SALES AND SERVICES CHIKMAGALURU ROAD, KOPPA POST KOPPA TQ, CHIKMAGALUR DIST 577 126 REP BY ITS PROPERITOR SRI SRINGERI KRISHNAMURTHY NAVEEN KUMAR. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. JINITA CHATTERJEE.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU 4 5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK KORAMANGALA BENGALURU 560 095. 2. THE INCOME TAX DEPT NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTER DELHI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SUSHAL TIWARI.,ADVOCATE) THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27.09.2021 PASSED BY R2, PASSED U/S 144 R.W.S 144B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, ALONG WITH THE DEMAND NOTICE, VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: Digitally signed by VANDANA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:7753 WP No. 986 of 2022 ORDER In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:- “ i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or in the like nature of Writ, quashing the impugned order dated: 27.09.2021, passed by respondent No.2, passed U/s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 along with the demand notice, vide Annexure-A; ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or in the like nature of Writ, directing respondent No.2 to consider that the returns of income declared by the petitioner, under the Income Tax Act, as Correct; iii) Issue a Writ of Prohibition, directing to halt the further operation of the impugned order dated: 27.09.2021 vide Annexure-A refraining the respondent authorities from initiating recovery proceedings or any such other relevant proceedings on basis of the order impugned hereof, till disposal of the above writ Petition; and iv) Grant such other reliefs as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice”. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the documents produced by the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner invites my attention to - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:7753 WP No. 986 of 2022 the impugned assessment order in order to point out that the petitioner was not granted an opportunity of personal hearing in the matter before passing the impugned order, which is violative of principles of natural justice. It is also submitted that if the respondents had granted an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, the petitioner would produce the additional documents and file additional objections before the respondents in this regard. It is therefore, contended that the impugned assessment order at Annexure-A deserves to be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. Though several contentions have been urged by both sides in support of their respective claims, having regard to the undisputed fact that no opportunity of personal hearing was granted in favour of the petitioner prior to passing the impugned assessment order, without expressing any opinion on the merits / demerits of the rival contentions, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition by setting aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the 2nd respondent for reconsideration - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:7753 WP No. 986 of 2022 afresh in accordance with law by giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and to produce additional documents and to file additional objections, if any and thereafter to proceed and conclude the proceedings in accordance with law. 6. In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER (i) Petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned assessment order at Annexure-A dated 27.09..2021 passed by respondent No.2 is hereby set aside. (iii) Matter is remitted back to the 2nd respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and also to produce the additional documents and to file additional objections, if any, in support of its claim, pursuant to which, the 2nd respondent shall conclude the proceedings in accordance with law. SD/- JUDGE Srl. "