SMT PUTTATHAYAMMA V. THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMIISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP/26711/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Smt Puttathayamma, the petitioner, who challenged the assessment order and subsequent demand and penalty notices issued by the Income Tax Department for the assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19. The petitioner, aged 69 and not familiar with digital systems, alleged that the notices were sent to an incorrect email address, leading to her inability to respond. The court found merit in the petitioner's grievance regarding the lack of proper notice and allowed the petition in part, quashing the impugned orders and allowing the petitioner to respond to the notice under Section 148A[b] of the IT Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 766156 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 20-12-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: E I SANMANTHI
• Assessee Lawyers: NARENDRA J JAIN
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Demand notice; Digital notice; Income Tax; Writ petition; Error in Notice
• Section: 147; 144; 144B; 148A(b); 148A(d); 226; 227

Judgement Text

"- 1 - NC: 2023:KHC:46474 WP No. 26711 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 26711 OF 2023 (T-IT) BETWEEN: SMT PUTTATHAYAMMA W/O CHAKKAMUTHAIAH AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS 690/0, 14TH MAIN ROAD 2ND PHASE, J P NAGAR BANGALORE SOUTH BANGALORE-560078. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.NARENDRA KUMAR J JAIN.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/ DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMIISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT MINISTRY OF FINANCE ROOM NO.401, 2ND FLOOR E-RAMP, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, DELHI-110003. Digitally signed by ANAND N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2023:KHC:46474 WP No. 26711 of 2023 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER CIRCLE 2(2)(5), BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560095. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.E.I. SANMANTHI.,ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO WRIT OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR OTHERWISE THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER VIDE ITBA/AST/S/147/2022-23/1050928321(1) DATED 17/03/2023 ISSUED BY THE LEARNED FIRST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S. 144B FOR AY 2017-18, ENCLOSED IN ANNEXURE-A; B) QUASH AS FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED BY AN APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR OTHERWISE THE IMPUGNED DEMAND NOTICE VIDE ITBA/AST/S/156/2022- 23/1050928611(1) DATED 17/03/2023 FOR THE PAYMENT OF TAX SO ASSESSED BY THE LEARNED FIRST RESPONDENT FOR THE AY 2018-19, ENCLOSED IN ANNEXURE-B. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER The petitioner has impugned the assessment order dated 17.03.2023 [Annexure-A] for the financial year 2017-18 and the relevant assessment year 2018-19 and the consequential demand and penalty - 3 - NC: 2023:KHC:46474 WP No. 26711 of 2023 notices. The petitioner’s grievance is because of the alleged lack of due notice as required in law. Sri. Narendra Kumar J, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri E.I. Sanmathi, the learned standing counsel for the respondents, are heard for final disposal of the petition. It remains undisputed that the petitioner, who is aged 69 years, and is not acquainted with the digital system, has furnished the email ID and phone number1 of her acquaintance, Sri Gopal, who assists her family members in attending to the income tax compliances. The petitioner contends that upon receipt of a copy of the Assessment Order and collecting the other documents, she is able to demonstrate that the notice under Section 148A[b] of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short, ‘the IT Act’] or the adjudicating order under Section 148A[d] of the IT Act, are addressed not to the e-mail registered but 1 The details furnished are [e-mail] and 90367 70435. - 4 - NC: 2023:KHC:46474 WP No. 26711 of 2023 to [e-mail] [Sri Sudha co- operative Bank]. This is an obvious error, and the impugned Assessment Order is essentially on the ground that no response has been filed upon service of notice. This Court, in the light of the afore, must opine that a case is made out for intervention, and when queried, Sri E.I. Sanmathi submits that while the impugned order and consequential demand notice could be quashed, this Court must enable reconsideration permitting the petitioner to file her response to the notice under Section 148A[b] of the IT Act leaving open all questions to be decided so that the Revenue’s interest is not affected. These submissions are just and reasonable and must be accepted, and hence the following: ORDER [a] The petition is allowed-in-part, and the impugned assessment order dated - 5 - NC: 2023:KHC:46474 WP No. 26711 of 2023 17.03.2023 [Annexure-A] and the consequential Demand and penalty Notices both dated 17.03.2023 [Annexures-B and C] are quashed. [b] The proceedings are restored to stage of Section 148A[b] of the IT Act with liberty to the petitioner to file response to such notice. The petitioner shall exercise such liberty within four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and there shall be corresponding extension of time in the event there is any delay in enabling the petitioner to file objections online. Sd/- JUDGE AN/- "