Sri. Shankar Reddy Battala Hanumappa V. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department and The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Chitradurga and The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Karnataka and Goa

WP/19724/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Sri. Shankar Reddy Battala Hanumappa, the petitioner, who challenged an assessment order issued by the Income Tax Department under Sections 147, 144, and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2016-17. The petitioner argued that the information used for the reassessment was incorrect, as evidenced by bank certificates contradicting the figures provided in the notice under Section 148-A(b). The respondents included various officials from the Income Tax Department. The court found prima facie merit in the petitioner's arguments and decided to set aside the assessment order, remanding the case for further proceedings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 799574 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 26-07-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: DILIP
• Assessee Lawyers: ANNAMALAI
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Cash deposits; Income Tax; Notice; Reassessment; Writ petition; Bank Certificates
• Section: 147; 144; 144B; 226; 148(A)(b); 227; 148 A (d)

Judgement Text

" - 1 - NC: 2024:KHC:29508 WP No. 19724 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 19724 OF 2024 (T-IT) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. SHANKAR REDDY BATTALA HANUMAPPA, S/O SRI. HANUMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS RESIDING AT NALLAREDY KONDAPUR VILLAGE, JAHAGIR, BUDDENHALLI POST, MOLAKALMURU TQ, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT PIN CODE - 577 540. PAN: BAUPB3550P. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANNAMALAI S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, REP. BY ADDITIONAL /JOINT/ DEPUTY/ASISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX/ INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME -TAX DEPARTMENT, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ROOM NO. 401, 2ND FLOOR, E -RAMP, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, DELHI-110 003. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, CHITRADURGA, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, TAMATKAL ROAD, Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:29508 WP No. 19724 of 2024 MEDEHALLY, CHITRADURGA KARNATAKA -577 502. 3. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KARNATAKA AND GOA, C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DILIP M., ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 147 RWS 144 RWS 144B OF THE ACT DTD. 12.01.2024 BEARING DIN AND NOTICE NO. ITBA/AST/S/147/2023-24/1059640653(1) ISSUED BY THE R-1 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17 HEREIN MARKED AS ANNX-A1 AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER Petitioner has sought for setting aside of the order of assessment and demand raised pursuant to reassessment proceedings instituted after following the procedure by issuance of notice under Section 148-A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') and passing of the order under Section 148-A(d) of the Act. - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:29508 WP No. 19724 of 2024 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that the notice under Section 148-A(b) of the Act was proceeded with and order was passed under Section 148- A(d) and in such order, despite the petitioner having stated that the information provided at Annexures to notice under Section 148-A(b) of the Act was contrary to the balance in his account at the relevant point of time, the said aspect was not taken note of and the Authorities had still insisted for an explanation as regards the amount of Rs.1,07,17,700/-. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would point out to Annexures-Q3 and Q4 which are certificates from the Bank relating to the cash deposits which are contrary to the figures mentioned in the Annexures to notice under Section 148-A(b) of the Act. Accordingly, it is submitted that the order under Section 148-A(d) could not have gone beyond the details of cash deposits as stated by the Bank at the relevant point of time. - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:29508 WP No. 19724 of 2024 4. Sri. M. Dilip, learned counsel for the Revenue submits that the petitioner has approached this Court after much delay of 7 months and accordingly, petitioner be put on terms if the Court were to grant any relief. 5. After hearing the matter for sometime, it is noticed that the documents at Annexures-Q3 and Q4 required proper consideration while passing the order under Section 148-A(d) of the Act. Prima facie, petitioner has made out a case for reconsideration. Without expressing any view on the merits of the matter, it would be appropriate to set aside the assessment order and remand the matter back to the stage of reply to the notice under Section 148-A(b) of the Act. 6. The petitioner is at liberty to make out his case to the notice under Section 148-A(b) of the Act by filing additional statement / reply and may furnish further documents as may be required to substantiate his case. - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:29508 WP No. 19724 of 2024 7. Accordingly, Annexures-A1 to A10, B2, B3 and C are set aside. The matter is remitted back to the stage of reply to the notice under Section 148-A(b) of the Act. Petitioner may put forth additional pleadings and documents as observed above. All contentions are kept open. Needless to state that petitioner is to be diligent in co-operating with the Authority to complete the proceedings expeditiously. 8. Accordingly, petition is disposed off. In light of the disposal of the writ petition, I.A.1/2024 filed for dispensing with the production of certified copies of Annexures-A1 to A10, B to B3 and C, is disposed off as not calling for any orders. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VP "