SMT VEENA HIRACHAND JAIN V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP/7670/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Smt. Veena Hirachand Jain, the petitioner, challenging an assessment order passed under Sections 144 r/w 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2012-13. The petitioner argued that the assessment order, which imposed a heavy tax liability, was made without providing an opportunity for a hearing, thus violating the principles of natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The respondents, including the Income Tax Officer and the Income Tax Officer National Faceless Assessment Centre, defended the assessment, suggesting that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act. However, the court found that the principles of natural justice were not adhered to in the original assessment process, leading to the quashing of the assessment order and remitting the matter for fresh consideration.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 767503 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 02-08-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: M DILIP
• Assessee Lawyers: JINITA CHATTERJEE
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Income Tax; Natural Justice; Opportunity of Hearing; Writ petition
• Section: 147; 144; 246A; 156; 226; 227

Judgement Text

" - 1 - NC: 2023:KHC:26861 WP No. 7670 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO. 7670 OF 2023 (T-IT) BETWEEN: SMT. VEENA HIRACHAND JAIN, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, W/O SRI HIRACHAND R JAIN, FORMERLY R/AT NO.99, 4TH FLOOR, MUNISWAMAPPA LANE, SP ROAD CROSS, BENGALURU-560 002. PRESENTLY R/AT NO.7/1, CHIKKANNAMMA TEMPLE STREET, CUBONPET, BENGALURU-560 002. …PETITIONER (BY MISS. JINITA CHATTERJEE., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S PARTHASARATHI.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, WARD-5(2)(5), BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 095. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI-110 001. 3. BRANCH MANAGER, SOUTH INDIAN BANK, K G ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009. Digitally signed by SHARADA VANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2023:KHC:26861 WP No. 7670 of 2023 4. MARUDHAR ENTERPRISES NO.1045, KATTIGENAHALLI, BAGALUR MAIN ROAD, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-560 094. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.M DILIP., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; R3 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DTD 10/12/2019 PASSED UNDER SEC 144 RWS 147 OF THE ACT PASSED BY R-1 FOR THE AY 2012-13 ALONG WITH THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SEC 156 OF THE ACT DTD 10/12/2019 (ANNEXURE-D) AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER The Petitioner has presented this Writ petition lays a challenge to the Assessment order made under Sections 144 r/w Sec.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Annexure- D). Learned counsel for the Petitioner vehemently argues that the subject Assessment Order which levies heavy liability could not have been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to her client. She also points out that the principles of natural justice are read into Article 14 of the Constitution of India in the light of a catena of decisions of the Apex Court and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be voided. - 3 - NC: 2023:KHC:26861 WP No. 7670 of 2023 2. Learned Panel Counsel appearing for the Revenue opposes the Petition making submission in justification of the impugned order. He contends that Petitioner has got an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 246A of the 1961 Act and there is no reason as to why she should be permitted to avail constitutional jurisdiction of this Court vested under Articles 226 & 227. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the Writ Petition. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant a limited indulgence in the matter inasmuch as, apparently, the impugned order has been made in gross violation of principles of natural justice. If an opportunity of hearing was given to the Petitioner, she could have putforth her version and that would have been in due compliance of requirement of principles of natural justice. 4. The vehement submission of learned panel Counsel appearing for the Revenue as to the availability of alternative remedy does not merit acceptance inasmuch - 4 - NC: 2023:KHC:26861 WP No. 7670 of 2023 as, the requirement of complying with principles of natural justice has not been satisfied. In matters like this, an Assessee cannot be relegated to the Appellate Authority merely because the Revenue insists upon it. The Writ Court has to do justice in accordance with law and cannot send back the aggrieved saying that the remedy lies elsewhere. In view of the above, Writ Petition is allowed; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned order. Matter is remitted to the portals of 1st Respondent for consideration afresh after providing an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner from the stage of Show Cause Notice dated 14.11.2019. All contentions are kept open. Costs made easy. Sd/- JUDGE Bsv List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6 "