Sri Ramalinga S/o Late Sri Lingaiah K V. The Deputy Commissioner/Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6(1)

WP/19056/2022

AI Insights

In this case, the petitioner, Sri Ramalinga, challenged the orders passed under Section 148A(d) and Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2018-19. The petitioner contended that despite submitting a detailed reply to a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act, the respondent passed the impugned orders on the same day without considering the reply or providing a sufficient opportunity for the petitioner to be heard. The court found that the respondent had erred in concluding that no response was filed by the petitioner, as there was only a minor delay of six days in the submission of the reply. The court emphasized the principles of natural justice and remitted the matter back for reconsideration.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 798763 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 29-09-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: E I SANMATHI
• Assessee Lawyers: VANI
• Keywords: Assessment year 2018-19; Income Tax; Natural Justice; Writ of Certiorari; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 148A(b); 148A(d); 226; 227

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.19056/2022 (T-IT) BETWEEN: SRI RAMALINGA S/O LATE SRI LINGAIAH K AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT NO.380, LIG 14TH B CROSS B SECTOR, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN BANGALORE-560 064. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. VANI H., ADV.) AND: THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6(1) (1), BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, SIXTH BLOCK KORAMANGALA BANGALORE-560 095. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI E.I.SANMATHI, ADV.) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER BEARING NO.ITBA/AST/F/148A/ 2021-22/1041944753(1) DATED 29.03.2022 PASSED U/S 148A(d) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS 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 writ in the nature of certiorari setting aside the order bearing No.ITBA/AST/F/148A/ 2021-22/1041944753(1) dated 29.03.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of assessment year 2018-19 vide Annexure-C. (b) Issue a writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari setting aside the order bearing No.ITBA/AST/S/14-1/ 2021-22/1041945126(1) dated 29.03.2022 issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of assessment year 2018-19 vide Annexure-D. (c) Issue a writ of mandamus or a direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to afford reasonable opportunity and to consider the reply filed by Petitioner before passing the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act; (d) Issue such other order and further reliefs as deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court, in the interest of justice and equity. 3 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record. 3. The material on record discloses that pursuant to the notice under Section 148 A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “IT Act”) issued by the respondent to the petitioner on 14.03.2022 calling upon the petitioner to submit response on or before 23.03.2022, on account of bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 29.03.2022. It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite the petitioner having submitted the reply dated 29.03.2022, the respondent has proceeded to pass the impugned order on the very same day without considering the said reply and without providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner in this regard and as such, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present writ petition. 4 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent s ubmits that there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there was only a delay of mere 6 days on the part of the petitioner in filing the response/reply on 29.03.2022 and under these circumstances, the respondent clearly committed a grave and serious error in coming to the conclusion that no response was filed by the petitioner and has proceeded to pass the impugned order which is clearly violative of principles of natural justice and the same deserves to be quashed and the matter is remitted back for reconsideration afresh, in accordance with law. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby allowed. The impugned assessment order at Annexure-C dated 5 and consequential notice at Annexure-D dated. are hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the respondent for reconsideration afresh, in accordance with law, after providing reasonable and sufficient opportunity for personal hearing to the petitioner. (ii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to file additional pleadings and documents before the respondent, who shall proceed from the stage of notice at Annexure-A dated 14.03.2022 issued under Section 148A (b) of the IT Act and pass appropriate orders as stated supra. (iii) All rival contentions of the parties, including the question of jurisdiction, limitation, maintainability, etc., are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same. Sd/- JUDGE mpk/-* CT:bms "