T.T.TOURISM PVT. LTD., V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP/145615/2020

AI Insights

The case involves T.T. Tourism Pvt. Ltd., represented by its director Jayachand, challenging an order from the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Hubballi. The order required the petitioner to deposit 20% of the tax demand raised following an assessment for the year 2017-18. The petitioner argued that the order was passed without a hearing, violating the principles of natural justice. The respondent contended that the petitioner had access to a statutory appeal, which mitigated any prejudice. The court found that the order was indeed passed without a proper hearing and thus set it aside, remitting the matter for re-assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 764655 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 09-03-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: M.Shivanna and another Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: Y V RAVIRAJ
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAKASH BADIGER
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Income Tax; Natural Justice; Stay of collection; Writ of Certiorari
• Section: 156

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM W.P.NO.145615/2020 (T.IT) BETWEEN : T.T.TOURISM PVT.LTD., R/P. BY ITS DIRECTOR, JAYACHAND S/O TUKARAMASA, JITURI AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, DAJIBAN PETH, MOORUSAVIRMATH ROAD, HUBBALLI-580028, NOW AT GOKUL GARDEN CAMPUS, GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI-5800030. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI PRAKASH R.BADIGER, ADV.) AND : THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1) C.R.BUILDING, NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI-580025, DHARWAD DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI Y.V.RAVIRAJ, ADV.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING THIS HON’BLE COURT TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 19.02.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1) HUBBALLI FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18 BEARING DIN AND LETTER NO.ITBA/COM/F/17/2019-20/1025434626(1). THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING “B” GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: 2 : ORDER : The captioned writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the respondent/Income Tax Officer as per Annexure-A to the writ petition. 2. The short point that would arise for consideration before this Court is that, the respondent/ Assessing Officer passed an assessment order for the assessment year 2017-18. Pursuant to the assessment order, the respondent raised a demand under Section 156 of the Income Tax Act. 3. The present petitioner being aggrieved by the assessment order has preferred an appeal before the Commissioner for Income Tax (Appeals) and the same is pending for consideration. Simultaneously the petitioner has also moved an application before the respondent/ Assessing Officer seeking stay of collection of taxes pursuant to assessment order passed by him. 4. The respondent has passed an impugned order as per Annexure-A without affording any opportunity and without hearing the petitioner. Under the said impugned order, the respondent/Assessing 3 Officer has directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the demand. Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioner is before this Court. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit to this Court that, the respondent/ Assessing Authority has committed a grave error in passing the impugned order without affording an opportunity to the petitioner. 6. The grievance of the petitioner before this Court is that the respondent being the statutory authority is required to pass order exercising power as envisaged under the statute and in strict compliance of the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules and after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. The said exercise has not been done by the respondent/ Assessing Officer while passing the impugned order. He would submit to this Court that on the sole count the order under challenge is not sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside. 4 7. Learned counsel to buttress his arguments has relied on a judgment rendered in M.Shivanna and another Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax1. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent would vehemently argue and submit to this Court that the order passed by the respondent/Assessing officer would not cause any prejudice to the present petitioner since he has already availed a remedy of statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority who has power to grant similar relief. 9. In that view of the matter he would submit to this Court that the order under challenge does not suffer from any illegality and the same would not warrant any interference by this Court. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned counsel for respondent. 11. On perusal of the order under challenge, it is found that the respondent/Assessing Officer has passed an order without hearing the petitioner. The said order is passed by the respondents by not following the 1 (2008) 76 CHH 0222 Kar HC 5 relevant provisions of the Act and Rules. Since the order under challenge is passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice. I deem it fit to set aside the order and remit back to the respondent/Assessing Officer to re hear the matter after affording opportunity to the petitioner. 12. For the reasons stated supra I pass the following order : The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the respondent/Assessing Officer as per Annexure-A is set aside. The matter stands remitted to the respondent-/Assessing Officer with a direction to hear the matter after notifying the petitioner and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. It is needless to say that the respondent/ Assessing Authority shall not take any coercive steps till the application filed by the petitioner is heard on merits in accordance with law. Sd/- JUDGE EM/- "