Vinod Manohar Sherlekar V. National Assessment Centre

WP/17998/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Vinod Manohar Sherlekar, the petitioner, who filed a writ petition against the National Assessment Centre, the respondent, challenging the assessment order, demand notice, and penalty order issued under various sections of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2018-19. The petitioner contended that due to bona fide reasons and unavoidable circumstances, he was unable to submit the required replies and documents, leading to ex-parte orders against him. The respondent argued that sufficient opportunities were provided to the petitioner to respond, which he failed to do. The court, adopting a justice-oriented approach, decided to set aside the impugned orders and remit the matter back to the respondent for fresh consideration, allowing the petitioner another opportunity to present his case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 818139 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 16-09-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: M DILIP
• Assessee Lawyers: SHREEHARI
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Bonafide reasons; Demand notice; Ex-parte; Penalty; Sufficient cause; Unavoidable circumstances; Writ petition
• Section: 144; 270A; 143(3A); 143(3B); 156

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 17998/2022 (T-IT) BETWEEN: VINOD MANOHAR SHERLEKAR S/O LATE SRI MANOHAR SHERLEKAR AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS VEENU COMPLEX NEAR SAMAJ BHAVAN MANNAGUDDA MANGALURU -575 003. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHREEHARI, ADV.) AND: NATIONAL ASSESSMENT CENTRE AN AUTHORITY SET UP UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 REP. BY PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (NeAC) ROOM NO.401, 2ND FLOOR, E-RAMP JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM DELHI - 110 003. ... RESPONDENT (By Sri. M. DILIP, ADV.) --- THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT U/S 144 R.W.S. 143(3A) AND 143(3B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DTD 10.04.2021 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT No. 1 2 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19 WHICH BEARS THE DIN VIZ., ITBA/AST/S/144/2021-22/1032334684(1) WHICH IS ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- ORDER In this petition the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs: i. Issue a writ of certiorari or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the order of assessment under Section 144 r.w.s. 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 10.04.2021 issued by the Respondent No. 1 for the assessment year 2018-19 which bears the DIN viz., ITBA/AST/S/144/2021-22/1032334684(1) which is enclosed as Annexure A. ii. Invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court seeking quashing of the notice of demand under Section 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 10.04.2021 issued by the Respondent No. 1 for the Assessment year 2018-19 which bears the DIN viz., ITBA/AST/S/156/2021-22/1032334691(1) which is enclosed as Annexure B. iii. Issue a writ of certiorari or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the order levying penalty under Section 270A of the 3 Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 17.01.2022 issued by the Respondent No. 1 for the assessment year 2018-19 which bears the DIN viz., ITBA/PNL/F/270A/2021-22/1038813086(1) which is enclosed as Annexure C. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent and perused the material on record. 3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner invites my attention to the impugned order at Annexure C dated 17.01.2022 in order to contend that due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, it was not possible for the petitioner to submit replies and furnish documents and the impugned order has been passed ex-parte against the petitioner. It is submitted that if one more opportunity is granted, the petitioner would submit his response along with documents and the same may be directed to be considered by the respondent in accordance with law. 4 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that despite sufficient opportunity being granted, the petitioner neither submitted his reply nor documents and consequently, the respondent was left with no option but to proceed to pass the impugned order which does not warrant interference by this Court in the present petition. 5. Though several contentions have been urged by both sides in support of respective claims, having regard to the specific assertions made on behalf of the petitioner that it was not possible for him to submit his reply and documents to the notice issued by the respondent prior to passing the impugned order due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, by adopting a justice oriented approach and in order to give one more opportunity to the petitioner in this regard, without expressing any opinion on the merits/de-merits of the rival contentions I deem it just and proper to set aside the impugned orders at Annexures - A, B and C and remit the matter back to the respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law after providing one more 5 opportunity to the petitioner and submit his response along with documents. In the result, I pass the following; O R D ER i. Petition is hereby allowed. ii. The impugned orders at Annexures A, B and C are hereby set aside. iii. The matter is remitted back to the respondent for re- consideration of the claim of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law. iv. Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit pleadings, replies, documents before the respondent who shall consider the same and proceed further after hearing the petitioner in accordance with law. v. All rival contentions are kept open. No opinion is expressed on the same. Sd/- JUDGE LRS "