SMT. TEJAL MILAN PARIKH V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP/28393/2023

AI Insights

The case involves two writ petitions filed by Smt. Tejal Milan Parikh against the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, challenging the ex-parte penalty orders imposed for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16 under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that the penalties were unjustified, and the ex-parte assessments themselves had been quashed by a previous court order. The High Court of Karnataka, referencing the earlier decision, quashed the penalty orders, restoring the proceedings to the stage of the notice under Section 142(1) of the IT Act, allowing the petitioner to file a reply with necessary documents.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 748161 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 24-01-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: W.P.No.26500/2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: M DILIP
• Assessee Lawyers: RAMA R
• Keywords: Assessment Year; Quash order; Ex-parte penalty
• Section: 142(1); 271(1)(c); 226; 227

Judgement Text

"- 1 - NC: 2024:KHC:3331 WP No. 28393 of 2023 C/W WP No. 28120 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 28393 OF 2023 (T-IT) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 28120 OF 2023 (T-IT) IN WP NO. 28393/2023 BETWEEN: SMT. TEJAL MILAN PARIKH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESIDING AT NO 1081/31 1ST FLOOR GOLDEN BLOSSOM 18TH A MAIN, 5TH BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE – 560010. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAMA MURTHY R.,ADVOCATE) AND: THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE SHARADHA BUILDING SARAF COLONY KHANAPUR ROAD TILAKWADI BELAGAVI – 590006. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.M. DILIP., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TOQUASH THE Digitally signed by NARASIMHA MURTHY VANAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:3331 WP No. 28393 of 2023 C/W WP No. 28120 of 2023 ORDER OF EX-PARTY PENALTY MADE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 ON 25.03.22 U/S 271(1) (c) OF THE ACT VIDE ITBA/PNL/F/271(1) (c)/2021-22/1041480183(1) ANNEXURE-E. IN WP NO. 28120/2023 BETWEEN: SMT. TEJAL MILAN PARIKH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESIDING AT NO 1081/31 1ST FLOOR GOLDEN BLOSSOM 18TH A MAIN, 5TH BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE – 560010. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAMA MURTHY R.,ADVOCATE) AND: THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE SHARADHA BUILDING SARAF COLONY KHANAPUR ROAD TILAKWADI BELAGAVI – 590006. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.M. DILIP., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF EX-PARTY PENALTY MADE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 ON 25.03.22 U/S 271(1) (c) OF THE ACT VIDE ITBA/PNL/F/271(1) (c)/2021-22/1041478132(1) ANNEXURE-F. - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:3331 WP No. 28393 of 2023 C/W WP No. 28120 of 2023 THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER In these petitions, petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned penalty orders at Annexure-E dated 25.03.2022 in W.P. No.28393/2023 and Annexure-F dated 25.03.2022 in W.P. No.28120/2023 passed by the respondent and for other reliefs. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 3. The material on record discloses that the common petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned ex-parte penalty order for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015- 16 passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is relevant to state that the ex-parte assessment order themselves have been quashed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.26500/2023 and connected matters vide order dated 21.12.2023. The operative portion of the said order reads as under:- - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:3331 WP No. 28393 of 2023 C/W WP No. 28120 of 2023 ORDER “a) The petitions are allowed in part and the impugned Assessment Orders are quashed. b) The proceedings are restored to the stage of the notice under Section 142(1) of the IT Act with liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate reply with necessary documents. c) The Petitioner shall be at liberty to file their reply with necessary documents with the respondent on or before 29.02.2024.” 4. In the light of the undisputed fact that the ex-parte assessment order itself has been set aside by this Court in the aforesaid W.P.No.26500/2023, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned ex-parte penalty order would also necessarily have to be quashed. 5. In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER (i) Petitions are hereby allowed. - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:3331 WP No. 28393 of 2023 C/W WP No. 28120 of 2023 (ii) The impugned penalty orders at Annexure-E dated 25.03.2022 in W.P. No.28393/2023 and Annexure-F dated 25.03.2022 in W.P. No.28120/2023 passed by the respondent are hereby quashed. SD/- JUDGE AN/- "