SONY INDIA SOFTWARE CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED V. THE ADDITIONAL /JOINT/DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP/18346/2021

AI Insights

The case involves Sony India Software Centre Private Limited, which filed a writ petition against the Income Tax Department challenging the assessment order, demand notice, and penalty notice issued for the assessment year 2018-19. The petitioner argued that the assessment was conducted without a personal hearing, despite a request for one, thus violating the principles of natural justice. The court found merit in the petitioner's argument, noting that the respondent did not provide an opportunity for a personal hearing before passing the impugned orders. Consequently, the court quashed all the notices and remitted the matter back for fresh consideration.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 754390 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 21-10-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, Section 143(3) RW.S 144B of the Income Tax Act, Section 274 RW.S. 270A of the Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K V ARAVIND
• Assessee Lawyers: GEETHA RANI JAIN
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Demand notice; Natural Justice; Penalty notice; Personal hearing; Writ petition
• Section: 143(3); 274; 270A; 144B

Judgement Text

" - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.18346 OF 2021 (T-IT) BETWEEN: SONY INDIA SOFTWARE CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED, 2ND FLOOR, SOUTH WING, TOWER-2, HIBISCUS, EMBASSYTECH VILLAGE, (VRINDAVANTECH VILLAGE) (SEZ), OUTER RING ROAD, DEVARABESANEHALLI, VARTHU HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560 103. REP. BY RAVIKUMAR KRISHNAMOORTHY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O. G. KRISHNAMOORTHY …PETITIONER (BY SMT.GEETHA RANI K. AND NARENDRA KUMAR J. JAIN, ADV.) AND: 1. THE ADDITIONAL / JOINT / DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME-TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS - ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI. 2. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CIRCLE 6(1)(1), BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU – 560 095. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 18.09.2021 ISSUED BY THE LEARNED R-1 UNDER SECTION 143 (3) RW.S 144B FOR AY - 2 - 2018-19 VIDE ANNEX-A AS FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED BY AN APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR OTHERWISE AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- ORDER In this petition, petitioner has sought for the following reliefs: \"a. Quash as far as the petitioner is concerned by an appropriate writ or order in the nature of certiorari or otherwise the impugned assessment order vide ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2021- 22/1035700578(1) dated 18.09.2021 issued by the learned first respondent under section 143(3) rw.s 144B for AY 2018-19 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/156/2021- 22/1035700593(1) dated 18.09.2021 for the payment of tax so assessed by the learned first respondent for the AY 2018-19 enclosed in Annexure B. c. Quash as far as the petitioner is concerned by an appropriate writ or order in the nature of certiorari or otherwise the impugned Penalty Notice under section 274 read with section 270A of the Act vide ITBA/PNL/S/270A/2021- 22/1035844828(1) dated 18.09.2021 for levy of penalty under section 274 r.w.s. 270A by the learned first respondent for the AY 2018-19 enclosed in Annexure C. d. Direct the learned first respondent by an appropriate writ or order in the nature of mandamus or otherwise, not to take any coercive step towards recovery of the disputed tax as - 3 - stated in demand notice dated 18.09.2021 issued by respondent enclosed as Annexure B.\". 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record. 3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the Show Cause Notice dated 03.09.2021 issued by respondent No.1 under Section 144(B) of the Income Tax Act (for short, the IT Act), the petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 13.09.2021 controverting various allegations made by respondent No.1 and also requested for personal hearing. It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite the said reply having been received by respondent No.1, respondent No.1 has proceeded to pass the impugned Assessment order without granting an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner to put-forth all contentions and produce all documents thereby violating principles of natural justice and consequently, the impugned Assessment order and the - 4 - subsequent Demand Notice and Penalty Notice issued by respondent No.1 deserve to be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would support the impugned Assessment order, Demand Notice and Penalty Notice and submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, a perusal of the Reply dated 13.09.2021 submitted by the petitioner to the Show Cause Notice will indicate that the petitioner has specifically requested the respondent No.1 for personal hearing before proceeding further in the matter. However, it is seen from the impugned Assessment order that no opportunity of personal hearing was granted to the petitioner by respondent No.1 before passing the impugned order and consequently, the impugned Assessment order and consequential notices issued pursuant thereto deserve to the quashed as being violative of principles of natural justice and the matter be remitted back to respondent No.1 - 5 - for reconsideration afresh after considering the objections and documents of the petitioner and providing reasonable and sufficient opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. 6. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i) Petition is hereby allowed. ii) Impugned Assessment order at Annexure – A dated 18.09.2021 issued by respondent No.1 as well as the impugned Demand Notice dated 18.09.2021 at Annexure – B and as well as the impugned Penalty Notice dated 18.09.2021 at Annexure – C are hereby quashed. iii) Matter is remitted back to the respondent No.1 for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law after considering the objections and documents submitted / to be submitted by the petitioner and by giving him an opportunity of personal hearing. Subject to the aforesaid directions, petition stands allowed. SD/- JUDGE SV "