SMT. LAKSHMI V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

WP/22874/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Smt. Lakshmi, the petitioner, who challenged the notices and orders issued by the Income Tax Department under various sections of the Income Tax Act, 1961, related to the assessment year 2018-19. The petitioner was aggrieved by the short notice period provided to respond to the adjudication order and the subsequent assessments and demand notices. The court found that the petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity to respond, as only four days were allotted instead of the minimum seven days generally required. Consequently, the court decided to quash the impugned orders and restore the proceedings for further consideration.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 771676 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 06-11-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: Y V RAVIRAJ; M DILIP
• Assessee Lawyers: CHIDANANDA B G
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Demand notice; Income Tax; Notice period; Writ of Certiorari
• Section: 147; 144; 144B; 148A(b); 148A(d); 156

Judgement Text

"- 1 - NC: 2023:KHC:39339 WP No. 22874 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 22874 OF 2023 (T-IT) BETWEEN: SMT. LAKSHMI W/O LATE .L.R. JAYARAM, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, NO. 24, 6TH CROSS, MANJUNATH NAGAR MAIN ROAD, BSK 3RD STAGE, BANGALORE-560085. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.CHIDANANDA URS B G., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7(2)(5) BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE, KORMANGALA, BANGALORE-560095. 2. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI-110001. 3. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Digitally signed by NARASIMHA MURTHY VANAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2023:KHC:39339 WP No. 22874 of 2023 OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, C.R. BUILDING, NO. 1 QUEENS ROADS, BANGALORE-560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.Y.V. RAVIRAJ., ADVOCATE A/W SRI. M. DILIP, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO SET ASIDE THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148A(b) IN DIN AND NOTICE NO. ITBA/ AST/ F/ 148A(SCN)/ 2021-11/ 1041268665(1) ISSUED BY INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7 (2) (5), BANGALORE WHICH IS HEREWITH ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-D; SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 148A (d) OF THE ACT IN DIN AND NOTICE NO. ITBA/AST/F/148A/2021- 22/1042245518(1) DATED 31.03.22 BY INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7(2) (5), BANGALORE WHICH IS HEREWITH ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-E. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - NC: 2023:KHC:39339 WP No. 22874 of 2023 ORDER The petitioner is aggrieved by the notice dated 22.03.2022 [Annexure-D] issued under Section 148A[b] of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short, ‘the IT Act’], the Adjudication Order dated 31.03.2022 [Annexure-E] under Section 148A[d] of the IT Act, the Assessment Order dated 14.02.2023 [Annexure-J] under Section 147 read with Section 144 and 144B of the IT Act and the Demand Notice dated 14.02.2023 [Annexure-K] under Section 156 of the IT Act. 2. The assessment relates to the assessment year 2018-19. The petitioner, amongst others, contends that the order under Section 148A[d] of the IT Act must fail because the petitioner, without any reasons being assigned, is given only four days to show cause against adjudication. Sri Chidananda Urs B G, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri M Dilip, the learned counsel for the - 4 - NC: 2023:KHC:39339 WP No. 22874 of 2023 respondents, are heard in the light of this canvass. 3. It remains undisputed that the notice is issued on 22.03.2022 permitting the petitioner to file response with supporting documents on or before 26.03.2022 when generally, a notice period of minimum seven days must be given. The petitioner has not filed her response, and the proceedings have culminated with the impugned assessment order and the demand notice without response from the petitioner. 4. The petitioner relies upon the assertion such as that because she was unable to clear the joint loan, after the death of her husband, she has sold the property; that she has utilized the compensation received and the sale proceeds to discharge the loan and purchase another property, and as such, her income is not chargeable to tax. This Court is of the considered view that the - 5 - NC: 2023:KHC:39339 WP No. 22874 of 2023 petitioner must have a reasonable opportunity to explain the aforesaid circumstances that are material because the petitioner is only granted four days without any reasons. Hence this Court is of the opinion that this calls for interference. Hence the following: ORDER [a] The petition is allowed in part quashing the Adjudication Order dated 31.03.2022 [Annexure-E] under Section 148A[d] of the IT Act, the Assessment Order dated 14.02.2023 [Annexure-J] under Section 147 read with Section 144 and 144B of the IT Act and the Demand Notice dated 14.02.2023 [Annexure-K] under Section 156 of the IT Act. [b] The proceedings are restored for consideration from the stage of notice under Section 148A[b] of the IT Act with liberty to the petitioner to file a detailed - 6 - NC: 2023:KHC:39339 WP No. 22874 of 2023 response with all other questions kept open for consideration. SD/- JUDGE AN/- "