SRI JAYENDRA PURI SWAMI V. THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/ DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP/19931/2021

AI Insights

The case involves Sri. Jayendra Puri Swami, the petitioner, challenging the Assessment Order issued by the Income Tax Department under Section 144 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2019-2020. The petitioner argued that the assessment was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice as his request for an adjournment to respond to a show-cause notice was not considered. The respondents contended that the adjournment was unnecessary due to procedural guidelines and the approaching deadline for the assessment. The court found that the non-consideration of the adjournment request rendered the Assessment Order illegal, leading to its setting aside.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 689908 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 13-07-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: E I SANMATHI
• Assessee Lawyers: NARENDRA J JAIN; GEETHA K
• Keywords: Adjournment; Assessment Order; Income Tax; Natural Justice; Show cause notice
• Section: 144; 144B

Judgement Text

" - 1 - NC: 2023:KHC:24300 WP No. 19931 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JULY, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 19931 OF 2021 (T-IT) BETWEEN: SRI. JAYENDRA PURI SWAMI, S/O VENKATACHALAM, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, No.1, SRI KAILASH ASHRAMA MAHASAMSTHANA TRUST, SRI RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 098. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NARENDRA KUMAR J JAIN AND Ms. GEETHA RANI K., ADVOCATES) AND: 1. THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELSS-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ROOM NO.401, 2ND FLOOR, E-RAMP, JAWAHARLAL NEHUR STADIUM, DELHI – 110 003. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(2)(2), BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA, BENGALURU – 560 095. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. E.I.SANMATHI, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH AS FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2023:KHC:24300 WP No. 19931 of 2021 DATED 27.09.2021 ISSUED BY THE LEARNED R1 U/S 144 R.W.S 144B FOR A.Y.2019-20, ENCLOSED IN ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER The petitioner has sought for setting aside of the Assessment Order at Annexure-A dated 27.09.2021 passed under Section 144 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') for the Assessment Year - 2019- 2020 and has sought for setting aside of the Demand Notice at Annexure-B and Penalty Notice at Annexure-C. 2. Learned counsel Sri. Narendra Kumar.J.Jain appearing for the petitioner submits that there is a violation of principles of natural justice insofar as, during the course of the assessment proceedings, show-cause notice was issued on 14.09.2021 calling for a reply on 17.09.2021 and that the petitioner had sought for additional time by way of motion for adjournment on 16.09.2021 and sought for time till 02.10.2021, which has not been adverted to in the assessment order and accordingly, the assessment order may be set aside and an opportunity be granted to the petitioner to reply to the show-cause notice dated 14.09.2021. - 3 - NC: 2023:KHC:24300 WP No. 19931 of 2021 3. Sri. E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel for the respondents-revenue would submit that in light of the limitation concluding on 30.09.2021, the question of giving further time did not arise and such procedure is permissible in terms of the Standard Operating Procedure dated 03.08.2022 and further submits that the show-cause notice dated 14.09.2021 was a last of all notices and prior to that, the petitioner has not been diligent in responding to the earlier notice. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 5. It is noticed that in the Assessment Order, the Assessing Officer has taken that there is no reply filed to the show-cause notice dated 14.09.2021 and proceeded. It is not in dispute that in terms of the adjournment application which finds a mention in the e-portal at Annexure-G, motion of adjournment was made on 16.09.2021 seeking for an adjournment up to 02.10.2021. There is no reference in the Assessment Order regarding the motion of adjournment. Even if it is assumed that the petitioner has not been diligent insofar as earlier proceedings is concerned, the last show-cause notice - 4 - NC: 2023:KHC:24300 WP No. 19931 of 2021 is a matter that is subjected to scrutiny. If that were to be so, non-consideration of the adjournment application, which is on record by passing an order while passing the Assessment Order renders the Assessment Order illegal. Accordingly, the Assessment Order at Annexure-A is set aside; the matter is remitted to the stage post notice dated 14.09.2021. The petitioner to make out his reply to the said notice and the Assessing Officer to proceed after giving due opportunity as sought for. Consequently, Demand Notice at Annexure-B and Penalty Notice at Annexure-C are set aside. All contentions are kept open. Sd/- JUDGE SMJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12 "