DR MADHUKAR G ANGUR vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP/2939/2023HC KarnatakaKAHC01006785202315 April 2024Author: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR5 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned assessment order dated December 31, 2021, and all consequential orders and notices. The matter was remitted back to the second respondent (Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax) for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's assertion of bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances, and sufficient cause for his inability to submit a complete reply. The Court adopted a justice-oriented approach to provide the petitioner with one more opportunity. It explicitly stated that no opinion was expressed on the merits or demerits of the rival contentions between the petitioner, respondents, and the impleading applicant, and all issues, including jurisdiction and limitation, were kept open for decision in the fresh proceedings.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Dr. Madhukar G Angur, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging an assessment order dated December 31, 2021, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Respondent No. 2) for the assessment year 2016-17. The petitioner contended that due to ongoing litigation concerning the management of M/s. Alliance University, he was unable to provide a complete response and all necessary documents to the Assessing Officer. He sought an opportunity to submit a detailed response and requested the court to direct the Assessing Officer to re-consider his claim. The respondents argued that the petition lacked merit and that the petitioner had already preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. In response, the petitioner stated his intention to unconditionally withdraw the pending appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner should be granted an opportunity to submit a fresh and complete response to the Assessing Officer, considering his explanation for the initial incomplete submission? The petitioner argued that due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances, and sufficient cause related to litigation concerning M/s. Alliance University, he could not submit a full and complete response with all documents to the Assessing Officer. He sought a fresh opportunity to present his case. The revenue contended that the petition had no merit and should be dismissed, further noting that the petitioner had already filed an appeal against the assessment order, making the writ petition not maintainable. The impleading applicant submitted that if the matter was remitted, all rival contentions between the parties should be kept open for decision in appropriate proceedings.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
- 1 - NC: 2024:KHC:15314 WP No. 2939 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 2939 OF 2023 (T-IT) BETWEEN: DR MADHUKAR G ANGUR AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS S/O LATE GUDAPPA NAGUR FLAT NO 803 G- BLOCK MANTRI ESPANA NEAR SAKRA WORLD HOSPITAL OUTER RING ROAD KARIYAMMANA AGRAHARA , BELLANDUR BANGALORE – 560 103. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRI.SHREEHARI KUTSA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HMT BHAVAN GST COMMISSIONERATE BLOCK 59 HMT BHAVAN, 3RD FLOOR, BALLARI ROAD, DENA BANK COLONY , GANGANAGAR 59 DENA BANK COLONY , ARMANE NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 032. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE (2) (4) HMT BHAVAN GST COMMISSIONERATE BLOCK 59 HMT BHAVAN 3RD FLOOR BALLARI ROAD DENA BANK COLONY GANGANAGAR 59 DENA BANK COLONY ARMANE NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 032. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.S. SHYAM SUNDAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. VANDANA P.L., ADVOCATE FOR IMPLEADING APPLICANT ON I.A./2023) Digitally signed by VANDANA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:15314 WP No. 2939 of 2023 THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 31/12/2021 PASSED BY THE R-2 I.E., LD. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE (2)(4), BANGALORE, DIN AND

ORDER NO.ITBA/AST/S/153C/2021- 22/1038308983(1) FOR THE YEAR OF 2016-17 IS AT ANNEXURE- B1.DIRECT THE R-2 TO CONDUCT AN ENQUIRY AFRESH VALIDITY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 WITH RESPECT TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

In this petition, petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned Assessment Order at Annexure-B1 dated 31.12.2021 and for other reliefs.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondents and perused the material on record.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that because of the litigation between the petitioner and the impleading applicant, in relation to the management of M/s. Alliance University, the petitioner could not submit full / complete response along with all documents to respondent No.2 who has proceeded to pass the impugned order, aggrieved by which, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. It is submitted that if one more opportunity is provided, the petitioner would submit a detailed NC: 2024:KHC:15314 response / reply along with all documents before respondent No.2 who may be directed to re-consider the claim of the petitioner, in accordance with law.

4.

Per contra, learned counsel for respondents submits that there is no merit in the petition and same is liable to be dismissed. It is also submitted that petitioner has preferred an appeal and as such, the question of entertaining the present petition before this Court would not arise in the facts and circumstances of the case.

5.

By way of reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner would unconditionally withdraw the appeal filed by him before the appellate authority.

6.

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is placed on record.

7.

Learned counsel for the impleading applicant submits that in the event this Court were to set-aside the impugned order and remit the matter back the matter to the second respondent for re- consideration afresh, all rival contentions between petitioner and impleading applicant are to be kept open to be decided in the appropriate proceedings. NC: 2024:KHC:15314

8.

In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and the specific assertion on part of the petitioner that his inability and omission to submit the detailed / complete / total reply along with all documents to respondent No.2 was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, without expressing any opinion on the merits / demerits of the rival contentions between the petitioner / respondents / impleading applicant and in order to provide one more opportunity in favour of the petitioner to submit the complete / total / detailed reply along with all documents, I deem it appropriate to adopt justice oriented approach and to set-aside the impugned assessment order at Annexure-B1 dated 31.12.2021 and remit the matter back to respondent No.2 for re-consideration afresh in accordance with law.

9.

In the result, I pass the following: ORDER

(i) Petition is hereby allowed.

(ii) Impugned assessment order at Annexure-B1 and all consequential orders, notices, etc., are hereby set aside. NC: 2024:KHC:15314 (iii) The matter is remitted back to second respondent for re-consideration afresh, consideration in accordance with law. (iv) All rival contentions between petitioner / respondents / impleading applicants including issues / questions regarding jurisdiction, limitation etc., are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same. JUDGE

DHA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →