Sri.C.T. Raghu V. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(3)(1)

WP/2606/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Sri. C.T. Raghu, the petitioner, who challenged an assessment order issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(3)(1), Bengaluru, for the assessment year 2012-13. The petitioner had previously contested a similar order in ITA No.787/2018, which was set aside by the High Court, remanding the matter back to the Assessing Officer to verify the receipt of an alleged amount prior to 01.04.2011. Despite submitting a Tax Audit Report and other documents, the Assessing Officer rejected the petitioner's claim, leading to the current writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The court found that the Assessing Officer did not adequately consider the petitioner's submissions and granted a further opportunity to present additional evidence.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 797607 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 03-04-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: ITA No.787/2018
• Laws Referred To: Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: M DILIP
• Assessee Lawyers: SHEETAL BORKAR
• Keywords: Assessing Officer; Assessment Order; Income Tax; Quash; Remand; Tax audit report
• Section: 2011-12

Judgement Text

" - 1 - NC: 2024:KHC:13724 WP No. 2606 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 2606 OF 2024 (T-IT) BETWEEN: SRI.C.T. RAGHU S/O C V RAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, NO.42/2, 8TH MAIN, 5TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN, RAJMAHAL VILAS EXTENSION, BENGALURU 560 080. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. SHEETAL BORKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(3)(1), BENGALURU 560 095. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.M.DILIP, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 DATED 27/12/2023, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT, AS ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-B AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: Digitally signed by VANDANA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:13724 WP No. 2606 of 2024 ORDER In this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of impugned order passed by the respondent at Annexure-B for A.Y.2012-13 dated 27.12.2023 whereby the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent. 2. A perusal of the material on record would indicate that in the first instance, the Assessing Officer having passed the order against the petitioner, the petitioner challenged the same before this Court in ITA No.787/2018, which was allowed by this court vide order dated 28.11.2022 by setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter back to the Assessing Officer to produce the material to show that the alleged amount was received prior to 01.04.2011. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though he placed the certificate of Tax Audit Report, substantiating his claim and available documents, the Assessing Officer has once again rejected the claim of the petitioner by passing the impugned order which is assailed in the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that in the light of the findings recorded by the Assessing Officer that sufficient material was not produced by the petitioner, if one more - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:13724 WP No. 2606 of 2024 opportunity is provided by setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter back for reconsideration afresh, the petitioner would produce additional documents to substantiate his claim. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits since petitioner did not substantiate his claim even after remand, the respondent was left with no option but to pass the impugned order, which does not warrant interference in the present petition. 5. A perusal of the material on record would indicate that the respondent-Assessing Officer has refused to accept the Tax Audit Report by Chartered Accountant on the ground that the schedule and Annexures were not signed by the partner of the CA Firm and contained only signature of the assessee. The Assessing Officer has also come to the conclusion that the Bank Statement of the petitioner and other documents had not been produced and consequently, proceeded to reject the claim of the petitioner. However, in the light of the specific contention urged on the part of the petitioner that if one more opportunity is provided, the petitioner would produce additional documents to substantiate his claim and also establish genuineness and authenticity of Tax Audit Report by making necessary submissions in this regard - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:13724 WP No. 2606 of 2024 before the Assessing Officer, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. 6. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) Petition is hereby allowed; (ii) Impugned order dated 27.12.2023 for A.Y.2012-13 at Annexure-B passed by the respondent is hereby set-aside; (iii) The matter is remitted back to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law; and (iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to produce additional pleadings, documents, judgments, etc., which shall be considered by the respondent, who shall proceed further in accordance with law. SD/- JUDGE AV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6 "