United Breweries Limited V. Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/Income Tax Officer National Faceless Assessment Centre and Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7 (1) (1) and Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range \\u2013 7 and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 7

WP/17834/2021

AI Insights

The case involves United Breweries Limited, which filed a writ petition against various officials of the Income Tax Department, challenging the proceedings initiated under Section 147 read with Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The petitioner argued that these proceedings were barred by limitation and opposed to the provisions of the Act, thus without jurisdiction. The High Court's decision to set aside the Assessment Order and the appellate order was influenced by a similar issue remitted back to the Assessing Officer by the ITAT for the Assessment Year 2015-16, suggesting a need for a consistent approach in handling similar cases.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 820311 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 09-08-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: IT (TP)A No.2532/Bang/2019
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: DILIP
• Assessee Lawyers: PAI DHUNGAT ANKUR DEEPAK
• Keywords: Assessment Year 2013-14; Income Tax; Jurisdiction; Limitation; Quashing notice
• Section: 147; 148

Judgement Text

" - 1 - NC: 2024:KHC:31927 WP No. 17834 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 17834 OF 2021 (T-IT) BETWEEN: UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED, LEVEL 4, UB TOWER, UB CITY, 24, VITTAL MALLAYA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560001, PAN NO AAACU6053C REP. HEREIN BY ITS HEAD LEGAL AND SECRETARIAL MR GOVIND IYENGAR, S/O LATE MR K. RANGARAJAN …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PAI DHUNGAT ANKUR DEEPAK, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ADDITIONAL /JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE ROOM NO 401, 2ND FLOOR, E – RAMP, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, DELHI - 110003. 2. THE DEPUTY / ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7 (1) (1) BMTC BUILDING, 80 FT. ROAD KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 095. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RANGE – 7, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FT ROAD, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU - 560 095. 4. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 7 BMTC BUILDING, 80 FT ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 095. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DILIP M., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by LEELAVATHI S R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:31927 WP No. 17834 of 2021 THIS WP IS FILED PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE IMPUGNED PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE R3 U/S 147 R/W SECTION 148 OF THE ACT ARE BARRED BY LIMITATION AND OPPOSED TO THE SAID PROVISIONS AND THEREFORE WITHOUT JURISDICTION. QUASH THE ORDER DATED 13.08.2021 PASSED BY THE R1 ANNEXURE-J REJECTING THE PETITIONERS OBJECTIONS AS TO HIS JURISDICTION AND LIMITATION IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14, QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 17.03.2020 ISSUED BY THE R3 ANNEXURE-E U/S 148 R/W SECTION 147 OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING ON IA, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “i. Declaring that the impugned proceedings initiated by Respondent No.3 under Section 147 read with Section148 of the Act are barred by limitation and opposed to the said provisions and therefore without jurisdiction; ii. Quashing the order dated 13.08.2021 passed by the Respondent No.1 in DIN:ITBA/AST/F/142(1)/2021-22/1034959127(1) (Annexure-J) rejecting the petitioner’s objections as to his jurisdiction and limitation in respect of the assessment year 2013-14; iii. quashing the notice dated 17.03.2020 issued by the Respondent No.4 in DIN:ITBA/AST/S/148/2019-20/1026711138(1) - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:31927 WP No. 17834 of 2021 (Annexure-E) under Section 148 read with Section 147 of the Act for the assessment year 2013-14; and iv. Pass such other or further order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interests of justice and equity.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue in controversy involved in the present petition is in relation to the Assessment Year 2013-14, which is the subject matter of the present proceedings. It is submitted that in relation to the petitioner, very same assessee, for the Assessment Year 2014-15, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short “the ITAT”) passed an order dated 19.05.2023 remitting an identical issue back to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. It is therefore submitted that the impugned Assessment Order at Annexure-K dated 30.09.2021 passed by respondent No.1 and the impugned appellate order at Annexure-N dated 25.01.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deserve to be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the Assessing - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:31927 WP No. 17834 of 2021 Officer for reconsideration afresh along with the proceedings in relation to the Assessment Year 2013-14 in accordance with law. 4. The said submission is placed on record. 5. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in IT (TP)A No.2532/Bang/2019 pertaining to the assessment year 2015-16 in respect of the very same petitioner- assessee, the ITAT remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer in respect of the identical issue by holding as under: “49. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The assessee has filed additional evidence as above. These additional evidences are produced first time before us and explained that assessee has been prevented by sufficient cause in not filing these additional evidences before the lower authorities. In our opinion, these additional evidences are very important to adjudicate this issue in dispute. Accordingly, we admit these additional evidences for adjudication after admitting for adjudication. In our opinion, it is appropriate to remit the issue in dispute to the file of AO and AO has to see whether assessee has made any direct advertisement with regard to sale and marketing of liquor or assessee made any surrogate advertisement in this respect. If the assessee has made any surrogated advertisement or indirect advertisement not mentioning anything relating to the liquor, the claim of assessee is to be allowed. With these observations, we remit the issue in dispute to the file of AO for fresh consideration.” - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:31927 WP No. 17834 of 2021 6. It is an undisputed fact and matter on record that the said appeal and the Assessment Order relating to the Assessment Year 2015-16, the present petition pertains to the Assessment Year 2013-14. Under these circumstances, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned Assessment Order at Annexure-K dated 30.09.2021 passed by respondent No.1 and the impugned appellate order at Annexure-N dated 25.01.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration afresh in along with the matter pertaining to the Assessment Year 2013-14 and in accordance with law. 7. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) Petition is hereby disposed of. (ii) The impugned Assessment Order at Annexure-K dated 30.09.2021 passed by respondent No.1 and the impugned appellate order at Annexure-N dated 25.01.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the Assessment year 2013-14 are hereby set aside. - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:31927 WP No. 17834 of 2021 (iii) The matter is remitted back to respondent No.1 to be considered along with the proceedings in relation to the Assessment Year 2015-16. (iv) All rival contentions including validity, re-assessment, limitation, maintainability, jurisdiction, etc., are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE BMC/SRL List No.: 2 Sl No.: 20 "