Syed Faraaz s/o Sri Syed Akbar V. National Faceless Assessment Centre and Income Tax Officer Ward 4 (3) (3) Bengaluru

WP/3209/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Syed Faraaz, a minor represented by his advocate, who filed a writ petition against the National Faceless Assessment Centre and the Income Tax Officer, Ward 4 (3) (3), Bengaluru. The petitioner challenged the assessment order and the subsequent demand notice issued for the assessment year 2021-22, claiming a lack of reasonable opportunity to respond to the proposed variations in the assessment. The court found that the petitioner was indeed given a short window to respond, which did not constitute a reasonable opportunity as required by law. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order and notices, restoring the matter to the stage of the initial notice for further proceedings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 816076 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 16-03-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: M DILIP
• Assessee Lawyers: SHREEHARI KUTSA
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Demand notice; Digital notice; Faceless assessment; Opportunity to Respond
• Section: 143(3); 144B; 156

Judgement Text

" - 1 - WP No. 3209 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3209 OF 2023 (T-IT) BETWEEN: SYED FARAAZ S/O SRI SYED AKBAR AGED 3 YEARS, NO.28, 6TH CROSS, 34TH MAIN, TMCS LAYOUT, 1ST PHASE, JP NAGAR, BENGLURU-560078. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHREEHARI KUTSA.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE A CENTRE DESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 144B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ROOM NO.401, 2ND FLOOR, E RAMP JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, DELHI-110 003 REP BY PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (NEAC). 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4 (3) (3) BENGALURU THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 Digitally signed by NARASIMHA MURTHY VANAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - WP No. 3209 of 2023 BMTC BUILDING, 80 FT ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGLAURU-560 095. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.M. DILIP., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE DIGITALLY SIGNED ORDER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S 144B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DATED 18.12.2022 ISSUED BY THE R1 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2021.22 WHICH BEARS THE DIN VIZ, ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2022.23/1048072714(1) WHICH IS ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-A; QUASHING THE DIGITALLY SIGNED NOTICE OF DEMAND UNDER SECTION 156 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DAED 18.12.2022 ISSUED BY THE R1 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2021.22 WHICH BEARS THE DIN VIZ., ITBA/AST/S/156/2022.23/1048072816(1) WHICH IS ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-A1 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER The petitioner has impugned the first respondent’s assessment order dated 18.12.2022 under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the IT Act’) [Annexure-A] and consequential notice of demand also dated 18.12.2022 [Annexure-A1 and the computation dated 18.12.2022 [Annexure-A2]. The - 3 - WP No. 3209 of 2023 petitioner’s primary grievance is about the lack of due opportunity. Sri Shreehari Kutsa, the leaned counsel for the petitioner, submits that on 29.11.2022 the petitioner was issued with notice on certain proposed variation and after the petitioner caused response, another notice is issued on 08.12.2022 [Annexure-G] proposing additional variation and permitting the petitioner to file response by 10.12.2022 before 11 a.m. However, the window on IT Portal for filing of response was closed by 10.12.2022 and as such the petitioner did not have reasonable opportunity. He further submits that this Court must not only quash the impugned assessment order and consequential demand/notice but also the notice dated 8.12.2022. Sri M.Dilip, the learned counsel for the respondents, cannot controvert that the petitioner is accorded rather a short window of opportunity to show cause against the proposed additional variation. - 4 - WP No. 3209 of 2023 In which event there must be interference by this Court, but there is substance in Sri M. Dilip’s submissions that the show cause notice dated 8.12.2022 [Annexure-G] cannot be quashed, but the petitioner must be extended a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the proposed variations. Hence the following: ORDER The petition is allowed, and the impugned order dated 18.12.2022 [Annexure-A] and consequential demand notice and computation both dated 18.12.2022 [ Annexures-A1 to A2] are quashed restoring the proceedings to the stage of response to Annexure-G, and as such, the revenue is reserved liberty to issue fresh opportunity to the petitioner with reasonable time to response to Annexure-G. SD/- JUDGE SA ct:sr "