SMT. SHEELA PATHIKONDA VISHNUKUMAR V. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OF KARNATAKA AND GOA

WP/102306/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Smt. Sheela Pathikonda Vishnukumar, the petitioner, who challenged an assessment order by the Income Tax Department, which claimed unexplained investments amounting to Rs. 3,42,36,271. The petitioner argued that she was not given a personal hearing, which was contrary to the treatment received by similarly situated individuals. The respondents justified the order based on the records submitted by the assessee but did not dispute the unequal treatment regarding the opportunity for a personal hearing. The court found merit in the petitioner's argument and remanded the case for a personal hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 754008 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 12-08-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: Y V RAVIRAJ
• Assessee Lawyers: MALLAHAR RAO; H R KAMBIYAVAR
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Faceless assessment; Income tax appellate tribunal; Personal hearing; Unexplained investment
• Section: 147; 254; 144B; 226; 227

Judgement Text

"- 1 - WP No. 102306 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 102306 OF 2022 (T-IT) BETWEEN: SMT. SHEELA PATHIKONDA VISHNUKUMAR AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, C/O M/S LAKSHMI PICTURE PALACE, HAMPI ROAD, HOSPET, BELLARY-583201, KARNATAKA, PAN-ACOPV3103B. …PETITIONER (BY SRI MALLAHAR RAO AND SRI H. R. KAMBIYAVAR, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OF KARNATAKA AND GOA, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001. 2. THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME-TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI – 110 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI Y. V. RAVIRAJ, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950, PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRTI(S), ORDERS(S) OR DIRECTIONS(S) QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 UNDER SECTION 147 READ WITH SECTION 254 READ WITH SECTION 144 B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT HOLDING THAT THERE IS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF RS. 3,42,36,271/- DATED 31.3.2022 VIDE ITBA/AST/S/147/2021- 22/1042229065 (1) (IMPUGNED ORDER) VIDE ANNEXURE-K AND CONSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS AS LAWFUL ILLEGAL AND CONTRARY TO THE PROVISION OF LAW AND ETC., Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL - 2 - WP No. 102306 of 2022 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY. THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING. ORDER The return filed by the petitioner for the assessment year 2013-14 culminated in proceedings before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which in return remanded the matter back to the Assessing Authority to provide an opportunity for the petitioner and to pass the appropriate orders. 2. In this regard, the Assessing Authority had issued notice on 02.02.2022 and again on 29.03.2022 to the petitioner herein. In the notice dated 29.03.2022, the petitioner was finally granted a day’s time to show cause by filing a suitable reply. The petitioner filed his reply on 30.03.2022, in which he also sought for personal hearing to explain the contention taken by him in his written statement. However, without giving an opportunity of personal hearing, the Assessing Authority has passed the impugned order dated 31.03.2022 bearing No. ITBA/AST/S/156/2021-22/1042229202(1) vide Annexure- - 3 - WP No. 102306 of 2022 K to the writ petition. Aggrieved by the same the instant writ petition is filed. 3. The case of the petitioner is that, she would have been able to explain the contention taken by her in the written submission properly, if an opportunity of hearing was accorded to her. It is further contended that, similarly situated persons have been accorded an opportunity of hearing. Not providing a similar opportunity has resulted in passing of the impugned assessment order which is erroneous and harmful to her interest. On the said ground, it is prayed that the impugned assessment order be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, justify the impugned order and submits that the same is based upon records submitted by the assessee. However, he is not in a position to dispute that similarly situated persons have been accorded an opportunity of personal hearing. - 4 - WP No. 102306 of 2022 5. For the aforementioned reasons, given peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is deemed appropriate that interest of justice would be met, if the petitioner would be given an opportunity of hearing. Hence, the following: ORDER i) The impugned Assessment order dated 31.03.2022 bearing No. ITBA/AST/S/156/2021-22/1042229202(1) Annexure-K writ petition is hereby set aside and consequently any subsequent demand notice is also set aside. ii) The matter is remitted back to respondent No.2 to provide an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. - 5 - WP No. 102306 of 2022 iii) It is hereby made clear that the order to be passed by the respondent No.2 shall not be hit by limitation. SD/- JUDGE SSP "