Ugane Prathama Kurushi Pattina Sahakara Sangha Ltd Kyathanahalli Hassan Taluk and District - 573216 V. Assessing Officer National Faceless Assessment Centre New Delhi - 110002 and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre Room No 356, C R Building I P Estate New Delhi- 110002 and Income Tax Officer Aayakar Bhavan 2nd Stage, Belur Road Hassan - 573201

WP/8355/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Ugane Prathama Kurushi Pattina Sahakara Sangha Ltd, represented by its CEO Mr. Basavegowda, challenging a penalty order and demand notice issued by the National Faceless Assessment Centre and related authorities. The petitioner argued that the appeal against the assessment order, although filed beyond the prescribed time limit, should be considered valid due to the Supreme Court's decision in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation. The respondents contended that the penalty proceedings were completed within the statutory time frame and that the petitioner should seek redress under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court, after considering the submissions, decided to leave the questions open for consideration under the alternative remedy provided by Section 246A.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 805821 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 19-04-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, in RE reported in (2022) 3 Supreme Court Cases 117
• Laws Referred To: Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, Income Tax Act 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K V ARAVIND
• Assessee Lawyers: MAHESH UPPIN
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Demand notice; Faceless assessment; Income Tax; Limitation; Penalty order; Writ petition
• Section: 246A

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL 2022 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.8355/2022/(T-IT) BETWEEN : UGANE PRATHAMIKA KURUSHI PATTINA SAHAKARA SANGHA LTD KYATHANAHALLI HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT - 573216 REP BY ITS CEO - MR BASAVEGOWDA ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. MAHESH R UPPIN, ADVOCATE) AND : 1. ASSESSING OFFICER NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE NEW DELHI - 110002 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE ROOM NO 356, C R BUILDING I P ESTATE NEW DELHI- 110002 3. INCOME TAX OFFICER AAYAKAR BHAVAN 2ND STAGE, BELUR ROAD HASSAN - 573201 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.V.ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) 2 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PENALTY ORDER DATED 26.03.2022 PASSED BY THE R-1 IN PAN NO.AAAAU4066B MARKED AS ANNEXURE-E AND THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 26.03.2022 BEARING PAN NO.AAAAU4066B ISSUED BY THE R-1 MARKED AS ANNEXURE-F BY ISSUING A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: O R D E R The petitioner has impugned the Penalty Order dated 26.03.2022 (Annexure-E) and the Demand Notice dated 26.03.2022 (Annexure-F). Sri. Mahesh R Uppin, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. K.V.Aravind, learned counsel, who accepts notice for the respondents, are heard for final disposal of the petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Assessment Order is dated 15.04.2021 and the petitioner’s appeal as against this assessment order filed, though beyond the prescribed time limit, would be 3 saved by virtue of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, in RE reported in (2022) 3 Supreme Court Cases 117 and as such, the authorities could not have initiated appeal proceedings and therefore, this Court must intervene. Sri. K.V.Aravind, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that the third respondent – the Income Tax Officer, after the Assessment Order dated 15.04.2021 and with the issuance of notice for initiation of the penal proceedings, had to complete the penal proceedings before 31.03.2022. The limitation for such closure could not have been saved. The petitioner, if aggrieved by the penalty order must avail remedy under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act 1961. The circumstances relied upon by the petitioner could be considered by the Appellate Authority in such appeal proceedings. 4 On a careful consideration of the rival submissions, this Court is of the considered view that the petition must be disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail alternative remedy under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act 1961. The Authorities must defer proceedings pursuant to the impugned order for a period of six [6] weeks from today. The petition stands disposed of accordingly leaving all questions open to be considered in the remedy that that would be available to the petitioner under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act 1961 and the further proceedings pursuant to the impugned order shall be deferred as aforesaid. Sd/- JUDGE RB "