SRI BHARANYA KRISHAN V. INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP/3390/2020

AI Insights

The case involves Sri. Bharanya Krishna Venkataramana Prasad, the petitioner, who challenged the assessment order and demand notice issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & TPS, Shimoga, for the assessment year 2017-18. The petitioner argued that despite submitting several replies and documents to the notices issued by the respondent, he was not granted a personal hearing, leading to a violation of natural justice. The respondent contested the petition, asserting that it lacked merit. However, the court sided with the petitioner, emphasizing the importance of a fair hearing in the assessment process.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 753849 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 08-12-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: E I SANMATHI
• Assessee Lawyers: M THIRUMALESH
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Demand notice; Natural Justice; Writ of Certiorari
• Section: 143(3); 156

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.3390 OF 2020 (T – IT) BETWEEN: SRI. BHARANYA KRISHNA VENKATRAMANA PRASAD, S/O LATE SRI.B.M.KRISHNA BHAT, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, NO. 1, KOPPA, HOLEHONNUR, BHADRAVATHI – 577 227, REPRESENTED BY SRI. Y.N.S. PRASHANTH, AGE 42 YEARS, S/O. SRI. Y.S.NARAYANA BHAT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.M.THIRUMALESH, ADVOCATE) AND: INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 & TPS, NO.75, 100 FEET ROAD, GOPALA GOWDA EXTENSION, SHIMOGA – 577 201. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE) ***** THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2017-18 U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT DATED 23.12.2019 BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 AND TPS, SHIMOGA ANNEXURE – L AND ETC., THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- 2 ORDER In this petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs: a. Issue a writ of certiorari or a declaration in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the assessment order passed for the Asst. Year 2017-18 under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act dated 23.12.2019 by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & TPS, Shimoga, in ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2019-20/1022960732(1)- ANNEXURE-L; b. Issue a writ of certiorari or a declaration in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the demand notice issued for the Asst. Year 2017-18 under Section 156 of the Income Tax Act dated 23.12.2019 by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & TPS Shimoga, in ITBA/AST/S/156/2019- 20/1022960787(1) – ANNEXURE-M; c. And grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. 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 3 material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent issued notices dated 10.08.2018, 11.05.2019, 04.07.2019, 31.08.2019, 10.09.2019, 11.11.2019 and 06.12.2019 followed by several other notices, to which the petitioner had filed replies dated 15.10.2019, 23.11.2019, 28.11.2019, 15.12.2016 and 16.12.2019 along with documents, requesting an opportunity of personal hearing and the said request of the petitioner was not considered by the respondents and the respondents proceeded to pass the impugned assessment order and demand notice, without providing sufficient or reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, who is before this Court by way of the present petition. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. The material on record discloses that the despite petitioner filing several replies along with documents to the notices issued by the respondents, the 4 respondents did not consider the request of the petitioner and had not afforded any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and proceeded to pass the impugned assessment order and the consequential demand notice, which is in violation of principles of natural justice and the same deserve to be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the concerned respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. 6. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned assessment order dated 23.12.2019 vide Annexure-L and the demand notice dated 23.12.2019 vide Annexure-M are hereby quashed. (iii) The matter is remitted back to the concerned respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. (iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to produce additional pleadings, documents etc., before the concerned respondent, who shall 5 provide the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing and proceed further in the matter. Sd/- JUDGE KTY/BMC "