Smt. Ramaiah Rajeswari w/o Sri M. Somashekar Naidu V. Assessment Unit Income Tax Department and Income Tax Officer Ward 4(3)(3) and Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka and Goa

WP/28843/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Smt. Ramaiah Rajeswari, the petitioner, who challenged several orders and notices issued by the Income Tax Department for the assessment year 2016-17. The petitioner argued that these were issued ex parte without proper service of notices or an opportunity for her to be heard. The respondents contended that notices were served, but the petitioner did not participate. The court found that the respondents failed to establish proper service of notice and thus set aside the impugned orders, providing the petitioner another opportunity to respond.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 686783 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 12-11-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: E I SANMATHI
• Assessee Lawyers: ANNAMALAI
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Ex-parte; Income Tax; Opportunity of Hearing; Writ petition
• Section: 147; 144; 144B; 148A(b); 226; 227

Judgement Text

" - 1 - NC: 2024:KHC:46173 WP No. 28843 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.28843 OF 2024 (T-IT) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. RAMAIAH RAJESWARI W/O. SRI M. SOMASHEKAR NAIDU AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.512/705, 1ST FLOOR 47TH CROSS, JAYANAGAR 5TH BLOCK, BANGALORE-560 041. …PETITIONER (BY SRI ANNAMALAI S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ASSESSMENT UNIT INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT REP. BY ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX/ INCOME-TAX OFFICER INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT MNINISTRY OF FINANCE, ROOM NO.401, 2ND FLOOR, E-RAMP, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM DELHI-110 003. 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(3)(3), BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560 095. Digitally signed by CHAITHANYA K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:46173 WP No. 28843 of 2024 3. PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARNATAKA AND GOA, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, NO.1 QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI E.I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 147 READ WITH SECTION 144 READ WITH SECTION 144B OF THE ACT DATED 05.03.2024 BEARING DIN:ITBA/AST/S/147/2023- 24/1062014928(1) ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17 MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A1, ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner in the instant case has challenged the assessment order dated 05.03.2024 passed by respondent no.1, computation sheet dated 05.03.2024 & 17.09.2024 issued by respondent no.1, demand notices dated 05.03.2024 & 17.09.2024 issued by respondent no.1, penalty orders dated 17.09.2024 passed by respondent - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:46173 WP No. 28843 of 2024 no.1 (vide Annexures-A1 to A12 to the writ petition), the notices dated 17.02.2023 and 04.03.2023 issued by respondent no.2 (vide Annexures-B1 and B2 to the writ petition) and also the order dated 17.03.2023 and the notice dated 17.03.2023 issued by respondent no.2 (vide Annexures-B3 and B4 to the writ petition) and the same pertains to assessment year 2016-17. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the impugned orders and the notices have been passed ex parte without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and no notices were served on her. However, the fact of notices not being served on the petitioner is disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the revenue. He submits that even though notices were served on the petitioner, she did not participate in the proceedings. However, revenue has not been able to establish the fact of service of notice to the assessee and it is not in dispute that the assessee has not participated in the proceedings. Under the given peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that interest of justice - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:46173 WP No. 28843 of 2024 would be met, if the petitioner is given an opportunity of replying to the notices issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without going into the merits of the case. 3. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The assessment order dated 05.03.2024 passed by respondent no.1, computation sheet dated 05.03.2024 & 17.09.2024 issued by respondent no.1, demand notices dated 05.03.2024 & 17.09.2024 issued by respondent no.1 and penalty orders dated 17.09.2024 passed by respondent no.1 (vide Annexures-A1 to A12 to the writ petition) and the order dated 17.03.2023 and the notice dated 17.03.2023 issued by respondent no.2 (vide Annexures-B3 and B4 to the writ petition) are set aside; (ii) The petitioner shall appear before respondent no.2 on 12.12.2024 without further notice; (iii) The petitioner is relegated to the stage of the notices dated 17.02.2023 and 04.03.2023 issued by respondent no.2 (vide Annexures-B1 and B2 to the writ petition); - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:46173 WP No. 28843 of 2024 (iv) Petitioner is given liberty to file reply to the said notices, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order; (v) Respondents are directed to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass necessary orders thereafter; (vi) The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE hkh. "