SHRI S S SHIVAKUMAR V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP/20604/2021

AI Insights

The case involves Shri S.S. Shivakumar, the petitioner, challenging the assessment order and demand notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore, for the assessment year 2020-21. The petitioner argued that due to technical glitches on the income tax department's e-filing portal, he was unable to submit the required information electronically by the deadline, which constituted a violation of natural justice. The respondents contended that the petitioner failed to comply with the notice to file objections/details by the stipulated date, justifying the issuance of the assessment order. The court found that the technical issues were a valid reason for the petitioner's inability to comply, thus quashing the assessment order and demand notice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 754348 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 25-11-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: ACIT Vs. Hotel Blue Moon (2010) 321 ITR 362 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Constitution of India, Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: E I SANMATHI; K V ARAVIND
• Assessee Lawyers: M V SESHACHALA; ARAVIND V CHAVAN
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Demand notice; Natural Justice; Technical glitches; Writ of Certiorari
• Section: 153A; 143; 156; 226; 227

Judgement Text

"1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR W.P.No.20604/2021(T-IT) BETWEEN: SHRI S.S.SHIVAKUMAR, S/O S.N.SRINIVASAMURTHY, AGED 49 YEARS, R/AT No.235, 7TH D MAIN, 3RD BLOCK, 4TH STAGE, BASAVESWARA NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 079. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.V.SESHACHALA, SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR SRI. ARAVIND.V.CHAVAN, ADV.) AND: 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. PRL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. E.I.SANMATHI ALONG WITH SRI. K.V.ARAVIND, ADV., FOR R-1 AND R-2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE 2 ASSESSEMTN ORDER DATED 29.09.2021 PASSED BY R-1 VIDE ANNEXURE-D1 AND DEMAND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 156 OF THE IT ACT DATED 29.09.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-D2 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2020-21. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER 1. In this petition, petitioner has sought for the following reliefs: \"a. Issue a Writ of certiorari to quash the assessment order dated 29.09.2021 passed by first respondent bearing No.ITBA/AST/M/153C/2021-22/1036005390(1) Annexure-D1 and Demand notice u/s.156 of the IT Act dated 29.09.2021 bearing No.DIN:ITBA/AST/M/153C/2021-22/10360053949(1) Annexure-D2 for A.Y.2020-21. b. Issue a writ declaring that proceedings initiated u/s. 153A r/w s.143 of the IT Act it is mandatory to issue notice \"of hearing\" as per Explanation to Section 153A of the IT Act as held by the Apex court in ACIT Vs. Hotel Blue Moon (2010)321 ITR 362(SC).\" 2. Heard Sri M.V.Seshachala, learned Senior Counsel for Sri Aravind Chavan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel along with Sri K.V.Aravind, learned counsel for respondents. 3 3. Though several contentions have been urged by the petitioner in support of his contention, the material on record, in particular, the notice dated 09.09.2021 issued at Annexure-B1 will indicate that the petitioner was called upon to furnish information, details, etc., on or before 14.09.2021. It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite he being ready and willing to furnish the information electronically in 'E-proceeding' through his account in 'e-filing' website of the Department, he was not in a position to do so on account of several technical glitches in the website as evident from Annexures-C1 to C6, all of which establish that many persons including the petitioner were not in a position to furnish the details/information as sought for from them. It is, therefore, contended that the impugned assessment order passed on 29.09.2021, by which date technical glitches had not been rectified and without providing any opportunity to the petitioner is violative of principles of natural justice and the impugned assessment order and demand notice deserve to be quashed. 4 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, in addition to supporting the impugned assessment order, submits that a perusal of the assessment order will indicate that the petitioner was called upon to file objections/details on or before 14.09.2021 and since the petitioner did not do so, respondents proceeded to pass the impugned order which does not warrant any interference by this Court in the present petition. 5. As rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, a perusal of the material on record, in particular, Annexures-C1 to C6 will indicate that though the petitioner was called upon to file returns/objections/response on or before 14.09.2021, the petitioner could not do so on account of several technical glitches in the website/portal of the respondents which prevented the petitioner and acted as an impediment and obstacle for the petitioner to respond the notice dated 09.09.2021 within the stipulated period as indicated in the notice or even up to 29.09.2021, the date of impugned assessment order. 6. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the inability and omission on the part of the petitioner to file 5 the returns/response/details on or before 14.09.2021 or even up to 29.09.2019 was on account of the technical glitches attributable only to the respondents and due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause and failure to appreciate this on the part of the respondents is in violation of principles of natural justice warranting interference by this Court in the present petition. 7. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned assessment order dated 29.09.2021 at Annexure-D1 and the demand notice dated 29.09.2021 at Annexure-D2 are hereby quashed. (iii) The matter is remitted back to respondent No.1 for reconsideration afresh after providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to file his objections/returns/response etc and to proceed to pass orders in accordance with law. SD/- JUDGE PKS "