Sri Hirehal Gaviappa Ramakrishna V. National Faceless Assessment Centre and Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 and TPS and Prl. Commissioner of Income Tax

WP/10762/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Sri Hirehal Gaviappa Ramakrishna, the petitioner, who challenged the assessment order and demand notice issued for the assessment year 2017-18 by the National Faceless Assessment Centre. The petitioner argued that due to technical glitches, he was unable to upload his response to a draft assessment order, which led to the impugned orders being passed without his input, violating the principles of natural justice and specific provisions of the Income Tax Act. The respondents contended that the petition lacked merit. The court found that the technical issues were a valid reason for the petitioner's inability to respond and thus set aside the orders, remitting the matter for fresh consideration.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 798781 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 09-09-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Constitution of India, Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: E I SANMATHI
• Assessee Lawyers: ARAVIND CHAVAN
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Demand notice; Natural Justice; Technical glitches; Writ of Certiorari; Mandatory hearing
• Section: 226; 144C(2); 227; 144B(1)(xxvii); 144B(1)(xxviii)

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.10762 OF 2022 (T-IT) BETWEEN: SRI HIREHAL GAVIAPPA RAMAKRISHNA S/O. GAVIYAPPA, AGED 70 YEARS, R/AT DOOR NO.1, WARD NO.VII, PARVATHI NAGAR, MAIN ROAD, PARVATHI NAGAR, BALALRI 583101. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT FLAT NO.002, HOYSALA DREAMS, NEW BEL ROAD, SEENAPPA LAYOUT, 40 FEET ROAD, OPP. TO MS RAMAIAH HOSPITAL, BANGALORE 560094. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ARAVIND V. CHAVAN., ADV.) AND: 1 . ASSESSING OFFICER NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NO.412-413, 1ST FLOOR, OPP.METRO PILLAR NO.793, DWARKA MOR, NEW DELHI 110059. 2 . JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 AND TPS, JAYAKAR BHAVAN, STAFF ROAD FOR, BELLARY 583102. 3 . PRL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AAYKAR BHAVAN, SEDAM ROAD, KALABURAGI 585105. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI., ADVOCATE) 2 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DTD 24.03.2022 ANNEXURE-E1 AND DEMAND NOTICE DTD 24.03.2022 ANNEXURE-E2 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18 PASSED BY THE R1 AND ETC. THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- ORDER In this petition, petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:- “ a. Issue a Writ of certiorari to quash the assessment order dated: 24.03.2022 bearing No. ITBA/AST/S/147/2021-22/1041475814(1) Annexure- E1 & demand notice dated:24.03.2022 bearing No.ITBA/AST/S/156/2021-22/10476035(1) Annexure -E2 for the Assessment year 2017-18 passed by the first respondent. b. Issue such other Writ or direction as this Hon’ble Court deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the present case.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents 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 invites my attention to the 3 draft assessment order at Annexure-D1 dated 20.03.2022 in order to point out that pursuant to the same, the petitioner prepared a reply and tried / attempted to upload the same on 22.03.2022. However, due to technical glitches in the portal of the respondents, the petitioner could not upload the reply on 22.03.2022 and consequently, the respondents have proceeded to pass the impugned assessment order dated 24.03.2022 which is violative of principles of natural justice as well as contrary to the provisions of Section 144B(1)(xxvii) and (xxviii) r/w Section 144C(2) of the Income Tax Act. He therefore submits that in view of non-providing of mandatory hearing in favour of the petitioner, the impugned assessment order deserves to be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents 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, pursuant to the draft assessment order being furnished to the petitioner on 20.03.2022 calling upon him 4 to submit a reply, the petitioner could not submit his reply on account of the technical glitches in the portal of the respondents is evident from the records, produced in this regard as Annexure-D3 and consequently, the inability and omission on the part of the petitioner to submit the reply was not on his own account but due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause and as such, the impugned assessment order passed by the 1st respondent on the premise that the petitioner has not submitted his reply is not only violative of principles of natural justice but also contrary to the provisions of Section 144B(1)(xxvii) and (xxviii) r/w Section 144C(2) of the Income Tax Act, since the mandatory hearing was not given to the petitioner. Under these circumstances, the impugned assessment order deserves to be set aside and the matter remitted back to the respondents for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law after providing an opportunity to the petitioner. 6. In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER (i) Petition is hereby allowed. 5 (ii) The impugned assessment order dated 24.03.2022 at Annexure-E1 and consequent demand notice dated 24.03.2022 at Annexure-E2 for the assessment year 2017-18 passed by the 1st respondent are hereby set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted back to the 1st respondent for reconsideration afresh by directing the 1st respondent to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to submit reply / response along with the documents etc., before the 1st respondent. (iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to produce the additional pleadings, documents etc., which shall be considered by the 1st respondent, who shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. (v) All rival contentions are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same and provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and proceed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Sd/- JUDGE Srl. "