Vimal Sagar Tiwari V. The Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/Income - Tax Officer National Faceless Assessment Centre, Assessment Unit and Deputy Commissioner of Income - Tax, Circle -1 (1) (1) and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 1

WP/14432/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Vimal Sagar Tiwari, the petitioner, who challenged the order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning the Assessment Year 2022-2023. The petitioner had invested in Ribbit Capital Bullfrog Fund II and provided documentation to substantiate the source of this investment. However, the assessing officer rejected this evidence, leading to the writ petition. The court found the initial decision to be cryptic and not fully responsive to the evidence and arguments presented by the petitioner, leading to the remand of the case for a thorough re-evaluation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 814459 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 19-06-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: DILIP
• Assessee Lawyers: T
• Keywords: Assessment year 2022-23; Cryptic order; Documentary evidence; Income Tax; Investment; Remand
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 69A; 271AAC; 144B

Judgement Text

" - 1 - NC: 2024:KHC:21971 WP No. 14432 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 14432 OF 2024 (T-IT) BETWEEN: VIMAL SAGAR TIWARI AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT VILLA 39, PHASE 1, ADARSH PALM RETREAT VILLAS, BELLANDUR, BENGALURU - 560 103, KARNATAKA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI T. SURYANARAYAN SR. ADV. FOR SMT. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR, ADV.) AND: 1. THE ADDITIONAL / JOINT / DEPUTY / ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME - TAX OFFICER NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, ASSESSMENT UNIT, ROOM NO. 401, 2ND FLOOR E-RAMP, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, DELHI - 110 003. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CIRCLE -1 (1) (1), BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 095. 3. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 095. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI DILIP M, JR. STANDING COUNSEL) Digitally signed by VIDYA G R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:21971 WP No. 14432 of 2024 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 25.3.24 BEARING NO. ITBA/AST/S143(3)/2023-24/1063341918(1) (ANNEXURE-K) PASSED BY THE R1 UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 144B OF THE ACT, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2022-23. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER 1. Petitioner has challenged the order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) for the Assessment Year 2022-2023 at Annexure - K as well as demand notice at Annexure - L and notice under Section 274 read with Section 271AAC of the Act at Annexure - M. 2. It is the case put forward by learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that insofar as for the Financial Year 2021-2022, petitioner had made an investment in Ribbit Capital Bullfrog Fund II for an amount of Rs.1,64,74,587/- and the source of investment was provided for in the reply to the show cause notice as well as reply to notice under Section 142(1) of the Act. It is submitted that despite such reply, the conclusion arrived at, at page 13 of the assessment order is non-acceptance of such source of - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:21971 WP No. 14432 of 2024 investment by observing that the assessee has failed to provide documentary evidence to prove source of investment and establish as to whether it is genuine. It is submitted that these investments referred to are backed by documentary evidence all of which is a part of the record and accordingly, conclusion arrived at by the assessing officer is contrary to the material on record and order is passed in a cryptic manner. 3. It is also contended that reference to Section 69A of the Act would not arise as the said provision could be invoked only if there is no reference to the investment in the record and in the present case, the investment finds reference in the return itself. 4. After hearing the matter for some time and taking note of the nature of reply made and also the submission that the source of investment is also documented, case is made out for remanding the matter back for fresh consideration by taking note of the conclusion arrived at, at page No.13 which appears to be cryptic while not making any reference to the contentions as advanced by the petitioner as noticed above. The contention - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:21971 WP No. 14432 of 2024 regarding inapplicability of Section 69A of the Act is also to be reconsidered. 5. The order at Annexure - K as well as demand notice at Annexure - L and penalty notice at Annexure - M are set-aside. The matter is remanded back for fresh consideration in the light of the observations made above. The petitioner is at liberty to file further pleadings in support of their contentions raised herein. 6. All contentions are kept open. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off. Sd/- JUDGE DN "