Suhel Khan V. Assessment Unit National Faceless Assessment Center, Delhi

WP/653/2023

AI Insights

In this case, the petitioner, Suhel Khan, challenged the assessment order issued by the National Faceless Assessment Center under Sections 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that he was not given a proper opportunity to respond to the show cause notice before the assessment order was passed. The respondent countered that the petitioner had been given multiple notices but failed to respond. However, the court found that the petitioner's request for adjournment was not considered, leading to the quashing of the assessment order and restoration of the reassessment proceedings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 798572 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 10-02-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: M DILIP
• Assessee Lawyers: RAMA R
• Keywords: Adjournment; Assessment Order; Reassessment; Show cause notice; Writ petition
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 143(2); 144B

Judgement Text

" - 1 - WP No. 653 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 653 OF 2023 (T-IT) BETWEEN: SUHEL KHAN S/O SARDAR KHAN AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS SEETHANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE HOSAKOTE POST, LAKKUR HOBALI MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT- 563 130 FACTORY AT PLOT NO.31, PART-4, 4TH PHASE INDUSTRIAL AREA SY.NOS. 113 AND 114, H- HOSKOTE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TQ KOLAR DISTRICT- 563 130. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAMA MURTHY. R.,ADVOCATE) AND: ASSESSMENT UNIT NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTER, DELHI- 110 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.M. DILIP, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED 22.12.2022 MADE U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144B OF THE ACT Digitally signed by NARASIMHA MURTHY VANAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - WP No. 653 of 2023 DIN NO.ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2022-23/1048181528(1) ANNEXURE-E TO THIS WRIT PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER The petitioner has called in question the assessment order dated 22.12.2022 under Section 143[3] read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short, ‘IT Act’]. Sri. R Ramamurthy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that this Court must intervene with the impugned order and restore the reassessment because the petitioner has not been given due opportunity. In this regard, he submits that the petitioner was issued with Show Cause Notice on 15.12.2022 and immediately thereafter, the petitioner has raised a request for adjournment but without considering the request for adjournment, the impugned assessment order is made on 22.12.2022. Sri. M Dilip, the learned counsel for the respondent, submits that prior to the Notice dated 10.12.2022, the petitioner has been issued with Notices under the provisions of Section 143[2] and repeated Notices under - 3 - WP No. 653 of 2023 Section 142[1] of the IT Act in the month of June 2022 and between the months of August and November 2022, but the petitioner has not responded to any of these Notices. As such, the petitioner cannot contend that there is denial of opportunity. In fact, Sri. Dilip draws the attention of this Court to the tabular column to the Assessment Order dated 22.12.2022. The petitioner’s grievance is considered in the light of the grounds canvassed on behalf of the respondents. It is seen from the impugned order that it is recorded that the Show Cause Notice dated 10.12.2022 is caused for compliance by 15.12.2022 and insofar as the response from the petitioner, it is observed in the subject tabular column that there is no response. However, it is not disputed that the petitioner had made a request for adjournment in time. This demonstrates that the petitioner’s request for adjournment has not been considered, and this Court must therefore opine that this is not the case of the petitioner has failed to avail the opportunity. In that event, the petitioner must have the opportunity, and hence, the following: - 4 - WP No. 653 of 2023 ORDER The petition is allowed quashing the assessment order dated 22.12.2022 [Annexure-E] restoring the proceedings for reassessment subject to all just exceptions in law. SD/- JUDGE AN/- "