M S VIJAY COLD STORAGE V. INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP/104938/2021

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Vijaya Cold Storage, represented by its partner Srikanth Mukteneni, who filed a writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India against various officials of the Income Tax Department. The petitioner challenged an assessment order for the assessment year 2015-16, claiming that they were not granted an opportunity for a hearing, which is a mandatory requirement under the principles of natural justice. The impugned order was based on incomplete details provided by the petitioner, as they failed to respond adequately to notices due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The court found that the petitioner was not given a proper hearing and thus quashed the order, directing a fresh assessment after a hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 754265 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 17-12-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: Y V RAVIRAJ
• Assessee Lawyers: M V SESHACHALA; GANGADHAR
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Covid-19 pandemic; Natural Justice; Opportunity of Hearing; Writ of Certiorari
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA W.P.NO.104938/2021 (T-IT) BETWEEN: M/S. VIJAYA COLD STORAGE, PLOT NO.CS-3, 2ND PHASE, APMC YARD, AMARGOL, HUBLI – 580 025. REP. BY ITS PARTNER, SRIKANTH MUKTINENI. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. M. V. SESHACHALA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. GANGADHAR J. M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO. 2(2), C. R. BUILDING, NAVANAGAR, HUBLI – 580 025. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, C. R, BUILDING, NAVANAGAR, HUBLI – 580 025. 3. DIRECTOR GENEREAL OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION) C. R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001. 4. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, C. R. BUILDING, NAVANAGAR, HUBALI – 580 025. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. Y. V. RAVIRAJ, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 26.07.2021 PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT BEARING NO.ITBA/AST/S/153C/2021-22/1034437336(1) ANNEXURE-G FOR A.Y.2015-16. : 2 : THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that they were not granted an opportunity of hearing and the said order is required to be quashed as it was in violation of the mandatory requirement. 2. In the impugned order, the Assessing Authority has stated as follows: “6. In response to the notice U/s 142(1) of the Act cited supra, the assessee submitted his reply online on 20.05.2021. Since, the assessee has not submitted the complete details/reply as required and called for and as the proceedings were getting time barred, this office issued show cause notice dated 24.05.2021 providing one more opportunity to the assessee for the submission of its reply. In response to the show case notice issued by this office on 24.05.2021. Subsequently, in the interest of natural justice, and in view of COVID-19 pandemic the assessee was issued notice/letters on 01.06.2021, 08.06.2021 and was asked to reply to the show cause notice. There is absolutely no response for the show cause notice and further letters issued. 6.1. Since, the assessee failed to furnish the comlete details called for, the assessment proceedings are completed on the basis of material on record and on the basis of departmental database.” 3. The order does not indicate that an enquiry was conducted or that a hearing was granted to the petitioner. This position is also not disputed by Sri. Y. R. Raviraj. : 3 : 4. It is to be noticed here that the period mentioned in the impugned order relates to the period when the entire nation was subject to a lock-down. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner is only seeking an opportunity of hearing, in my view, it would be just necessary to grant them an opportunity of hearing. 5. I therefore, quash the impugned orders and direct the Assessing Authority to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass a fresh order. Writ petition is accordingly allowed. It is needless to state that all the contentions available to the petitioner can be raise before the Assessing Authority. Sd/- JUDGE SSP "