Sri. Jampana Venkata Rama Jogiraju S/o. Ramakrishna Raju V. Assessment Unit, Faceless Assessment Centre North Block, New Delhi and National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi and Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1)(1), Bangalore and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Bangalore

WP/23166/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Sri. Jampana Venkata Rama Jogiraju, the petitioner, who challenged the assessment orders passed by the Income Tax authorities for the Assessment Year 2016-17. The petitioner contended that he did not receive the notices under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which led to his inability to respond and submit necessary documents. The High Court of Karnataka, after hearing the arguments and considering the circumstances presented by the petitioner, decided to set aside the impugned orders and remit the matter back for fresh consideration, providing the petitioner an opportunity to submit his responses.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 805731 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 12-09-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: M DILIP
• Assessee Lawyers: M V SESHACHALA
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Faceless assessment; Income Tax; Writ of Certiorari; Section 148A Notices
• Section: 148A(b); 148A(d); 226; 227

Judgement Text

" - 1 - NC: 2024:KHC:37528 WP No. 23166 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 23166 OF 2024 (T-IT) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. JAMPANA VENKATA RAMA JOGIRAJU S/O. RAMAKRISHNA RAJU AGED 60 YEARS, R/AT. NO.323, 3RD MAIN, 1ST BLOCK, R.T. NAGAR, BANGALORE-560032. (NOT CLAIMING SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT) …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.V.SESHACHALA SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. NAGHARISH G S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ASSESSMENT UNIT, FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001 REP. BY ASSESSING OFFICER. 2. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NO.412-413, IST FLOOR, OPP. METRO PILLAR NO. 793 DWARKA MOR, NEW DELHI-110059. REP. BY ASSESSING OFFICER 3. JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1)(1) BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560095. 4. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 Digitally signed by LEELAVATHI S R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:37528 WP No. 23166 of 2024 BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560095. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.DILIP., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DTD 14.03.2024 BERING NO. ITBA/AST/S/147/2023-24/1062621377(1) ANNX-J PASSED BY THE R-1 AND CONSEQUENTLY ORDER PASSED U/S 148A(D) OF THE IT DTD 17.03.2024 BEARING NO. ITBA/AST/F/148A/2022- 23/1050908056(1) ANNX-D PASSED BY THE R-3 BOTH FOR AY 2016-17, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “i) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the assessment order dated 14.03.2024 bearing No.ITBA/AST/S/147/2023- 24/1062621377(1) Annexure-J passed by the first respondent and consequently order passed under Section 148A(d) of the IT dated 17.03.2023 bearing No.ITBA/AST/F/148A/2022-23/1050908056(1) Annexure-D passed by third respondent both for Assessment year 2016- 17.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:37528 WP No. 23166 of 2024 3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the memorandum of petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that notices issued by the respondents under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘IT Act’), dated 02.03.2023 and 09.03.2023 were not received by petitioner and he was not aware of the notices and consequently, petitioner could not submit its reply / response along with documents to the said notices. It is submitted that the inability and omission on the part of the petitioner to submit reply / response along with documents to the Section 148A(b) notices was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause and as such, if one more opportunity is provided to the petitioner to do so by setting aside the impugned orders and notices, the petitioner would do so and respondents may be directed to proceed further in accordance with law. 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. - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:37528 WP No. 23166 of 2024 5. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that it is an undisputed fact that petitioner has not submitted reply / response along with documents to Section 148A(b) notices. Under these circumstances, in view of the specific assertion on the part of the petitioner that his inability and omission to submit a reply along with documents to Section 148A(b) notices was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause and if one more opportunity is granted, petitioner would submit reply along with documents, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order at Annexure-D dated 17.03.2023 passed under Section 148A(d) of the IT Act and subsequent notices / orders, etc., and remit the matter back to respondent No.1 for reconsideration afresh from the stage of submitting of reply by the petitioner to Section 148A(b) notices and to proceed further in accordance with law. 6. In the result, pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby allowed. (ii) Impugned order at Annexure-D is hereby set aside. - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:37528 WP No. 23166 of 2024 (iii) Matter is remitted back to respondent No.1 for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law from the stage of submitting of reply to the Show Cause Notices under Section 148A(b) of the IT Act at Annexures-C and C1 dated 02.03.2023 and 09.03.2023. (iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit replies, responses, pleadings, documents, etc., to the respondent, who shall consider the same, provide sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and proceed further in accordance with law. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE HNM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 12 "