SHRI VIJAY KUMAR PUTCHA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP/8313/2021

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Vijay Kumar Putcha, the petitioner, who challenged the assessment order and the subsequent rejection of his rectification application by the Income Tax Officer and the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. The petitioner argued that he did not receive the notices as required under Rule 127(2)(a)(ii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, leading to an ex-parte assessment. The court found that the notices were not properly served, thus violating the principles of natural justice, and set aside the orders, remitting the matter for fresh consideration.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 753905 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 10-11-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: E I SANMATHI
• Assessee Lawyers: M V SESHACHALA; ARAVIND CHAVAN
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Ex parte order; Natural Justice; Rectification Application; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 148; 142(1); 226; 227

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.8313 OF 2021 (T-IT) BETWEEN: SHRI VIJAY KUMAR PUTCHA S/O. P.V.S. SASTRY AGED 51 YEARS R/AT. NO.56, 2ND FLOOR 3RD MAIN ROAD, VENKATACHARI NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 020. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.V.SESHACHALA., SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR SRI. ARAVIND.V. CHAVAN., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(3) (1) BMTC BUILDING KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU – 560 095. 2. PRL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5 BMTC BUILDING KORAMANGALA BENGALURU – 560 095. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI., ADVOCATE ) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TAKE ON RECORD THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ANNEXURE-G ALONG WITH THE STATEMENTS ANNEXURE-H FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 OF THE IT ACT ANNEXURE-L AND ETC. THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- 2 ORDER In this petition, petitioner has sought for the following reliefs: a) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Assessing Officer to take on record the return of income filed by the assessee Annexure – G along with the statements Annexure-H for the Assessment Year 2012-13 in response to notice issued under Section 148 of the IT Act Annexure-L. b) To quash the order of assessment dated 27.12.2019 produced as Annexure-P passed by the first respondent and consequential order rejecting the rectification application dated 07.04.2021 produced as Annexure-R. c) Issue such other writ or direction as this Hon’ble Court deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 2. Heard learned Senior 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 memorandum of petition and referring to the material on record, learned Senior Counsel 3 for the petitioner invites my attention to the impugned assessment order at Annexure – P in particular to paragraph 5 in order to point out that though the assessment order states that notice was issued to the petitioner, petitioner actually did not receive the same, since it was not served on the latest e-mail address of the petitioner as required under Rule 127(2)(a)(ii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 4. It is submitted that the inability and omission on the part of the petitioner to submit his reply along with the documents to the aforesaid notice was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause. Aggrieved by the same, when the petitioner filed application for rectification, the same was also rejected vide order dated 07.04.2021 on the sole ground that the petitioner had not provided any documents, details, etc., during course of the assessment proceedings. It is therefore contended that the impugned assessment order is an ex-parte order without providing sufficient or reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and is thereby violative of principles of natural 4 justice and the same deserves to be set aside and the matter remitted back to the respondents for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law by providing one more opportunity to the petitioner to submit his reply along with the documents. 5. It is further submitted that though the appeal has been preferred by the petitioner, in the event the impugned orders are set aside and matter is remitted back to the respondents for reconsideration afresh, petitioner would withdraw the said appeal filed by it before the Appellate Authority. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. As rightly contended by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, along with the application for rectification, though the petitioner has produced documents for the purpose of substantiating its claim, without considering the same, the respondents have rejected the 5 rectification application on the erroneous premise / ground that the documents and details have not been furnished or provided during the course of the rectification proceedings and as such, the impugned order rejecting the rectification application deserves to be set aside. 8. The material on record also discloses that the notices dated 27.03.2019 and 06.08.2019 as well as the notices dated 13.11.2019 and 18.12.2019 issued by the respondents under Section 148 and 142 (1) of the I.T.Act have not been duly served / communicated to the petitioner and in the absence of the petitioner being duly served as required under Rule 127(2)(a)(ii) of the I.T. Rules, in as much as the same, having not been delivered to the last known e-mail I.D. address available in the IT returns produced by the petitioner, I am of the view that the impugned ex-parte assessment order, which proceeds on the basis that no reply was submitted by the petitioner is clearly erroneous and arbitrary and the same deserves to be set aside. 6 9. Further, in view of the specific assertion on the part of the petitioner that if one more opportunity is provided to the petitioner to file / submit his returns as well as a detailed reply along with relevant documents to the respondents, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned assessment order as well as the impugned rectification order and remit the matter back to the respondents for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. 10. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) Petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned assessment order at Annexure-P dated 27.12.2019 and the impugned order at Annexure-R dated 07.04.2021 rejecting the rectification application of the petitioner are hereby set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted back to the respondents for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law from the stage of Section 147 of the Income 7 Tax Act, 1961 by taking on record the Income Tax Returns at Annexure-G submitted by the petitioner. (iv) Liberty is hereby reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit response / reply along with documents to the Notices dated 27.03.2019 and 06.08.2019 issued by the respondents under Section 148 of the I.T.Act and to proceed further and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. (v) It is made clear that the present order is passed in the peculiar / special facts and circumstances of the instant case and shall not be treated as a precedent nor have any precedential value for any purpose whatsoever. SD/- JUDGE SV/SRL "