Sparkle Jewellery Partnership Firm and Smt. R Lavanya and Smt. R Vandana V. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Department Circle-5(2)(1) and Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Department Range-5(2) and Deputy Commissioner Bangalore Urban District and Axis Bank Limited

WP/14173/2015

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Sparkle Jewellery Partnership Firm and its partners challenging an assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. The petitioners argued that they were not given an opportunity to present their case before the Assessing Officer, as required under Section 142(1). The assessment order added a sum of Rs.2,27,50,000 to the assessee's total income based on the available records, as the books of accounts were not produced. The court found that the petitioners had an alternative remedy under Section 246-A of the Income Tax Act, which they had not availed, and thus dismissed the writ petition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 818163 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 23-04-2015
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: CIT Vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K V ARAVIND; V MOHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: MADHUKAR NADIG
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Efficacious Remedy; Income Tax; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 246 A

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL 2015 BEFORE THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.14173/2015 (T-IT) BETWEEN: 1. M/s. SPARKLE JEWELLERY PARTNERSHIP FIRM, REG.OFF AT NO.7/1, 1ST FLOOR ABOVE INDIAN BANK GANDHI BAZAR MAIN ROAD BASAVANAGUDI BANGALORE – 560 004. 1(a) SMT R LAVANYA W/O GOVINDRAJ RAGHAVENDRA 40 YEARS, PARTNER OF M/s. SPARKLE JEWELLERY, NO.1101, BALAJI 8TH CROSS BSK I-STAGE, ASHOK NAGAR BANGALORE – 560 050. 1(b) SMT R VANDANA W/O GOVINDRAJ RAJEEV AGED 42 YEARS, PARTNER OF M/S SPARKLE JEWELLERY NO.1101, BALAJI 8TH CROSS BSK I-STAGE, ASHOK NAGAR BANGALORE – 560 050. ... PETITIONERS (By Sri. MADHUKAR NADIG, Adv.) 2 AND: 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT CIRCLE-5(2)(1), 4TH FLOOR UNITY BUILDING ANNEXXE, MISSION ROAD BANGALORE - 560 027. 2. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT RANGE-5(2), 4TH FLOOR UNITY BUILDING ANNEXXE MISSION ROAD BANGALORE – 560 027. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT K G ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 009 4. AXIS BANK LIMITED CORPORATE BANKING BRANCH 2ND FLOOR EXPRESS BUILDING NO.1, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE 560 001 REP. BY PRESIDENT / MANAGER. ...RESPONDENTS (By Sri.K.V.ARAVIND, PANEL COUNSEL FOR R1 TO R3; Sri.V.MOHAN, Adv. FOR C/R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO THE R-1 & 2 TO GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE PETITIONERS TO PUT FORTH THEIR CASE AND COMPLIANCE OF SECTION 142[1] BY PRODUCING THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS BEFORE PROCEED TO TAKE ITS ACTION AS PER ORDER UNDER SECTION1 43[3] OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 PASSED BY THE R-2 ON 23.3.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-E. 3 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Heard Sri.Madhukar Nadig, learned counsel appearing of the petitioners and Sri.K.V.Aravind, Panel counsel who has accepted notice for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri.V.Mohan, learned counsel appearing for Caveator/Respondent no.4. 2. Assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is under challenge in the present writ petition contending interalia that an opportunity had to be given to the petitioners to putforth their case before the Assessing Officer. 3. Petitioner is an assessee under Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) had filed the return of income on 28.09.2012 for the assessment year 2012-13 and same was taken up for scrutiny. Notice came to be issued to the assessee. One of the partners of the firm appeared before 4 Assessing Officer. Later on, the books of accounts were not produced. On the basis of available records, Assessing Officer has proceeded to frame the Assessment Order and a sum of Rs.2,27,50,000/- came to be added to assessee’s total income which order is under challenge in the present writ petition. Undisputedly, the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy available under Section 246-A of the Act and without availing said remedy, petitioners cannot be permitted to question the same in writ jurisdiction as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal reported in (2014)1 SCC 603. Hence, interference under Article 226 of Constitution of India is not called for, particularly, when the exemptions carved out by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others reported in (1998)8 SCC page 01 is not present. Since petitioners are having alternate and efficacious remedy under Section 246-A of 5 the Act, this Court would not interfere with the Assessment Order passed by the first respondent. Hence, writ petition is hereby dismissed. Petitioner is at liberty to challenge the said order under Section 246-A of the Income Tax Act, if so advised. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- JUDGE dh* "