DR MADHUKAR G ANGUR vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP/2944/2023HC KarnatakaKAHC01006786202327 February 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. The matter was remitted back to the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (R-2) for fresh reconsideration in accordance with the law. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's assertion that his inability to submit a complete reply was due to bonafide reasons and unavoidable circumstances. While setting aside the order and remitting the matter, the Court explicitly stated that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the rival contentions between the petitioner, respondents, and the impleading applicant. All rival contentions, including issues of jurisdiction, were kept open to be decided in appropriate proceedings. The operative direction was to provide the petitioner one more opportunity to submit a detailed reply.

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 (R-2) under Section 153 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act. 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 reply and have his claim reconsidered. The revenue argued that the petition lacked merit and that the petitioner had already preferred an appeal. The petitioner then agreed to unconditionally withdraw the appeal filed before the appellate authority.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging an assessment order when an appeal has been filed before the appellate authority, and if so, under what circumstances? (Question of law and fact, turning on the principles of alternative remedies and the High Court's writ jurisdiction). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that due to bonafide reasons and unavoidable circumstances related to a separate litigation, he could not submit a complete response to the Assessing Officer. He sought an opportunity to present his case afresh. The petitioner also agreed to withdraw the pending appeal. Revenue's Contention: The revenue contended that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had already availed the alternative remedy of appeal. They argued that the petition had no merit and should be dismissed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
- 1 - NC: 2024:KHC:8062 WP No. 2944 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 2944 OF 2023 (T-IT) BETWEEN: DR. MADHUKAR G ANGUR AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS S/O LATE GUDDAPP ANGUR FLAT NO.803 G -BLOCK MANTRI ESPANA NEAR SAKRA WORLD HOSPITAL OUTER RING ROAD, KARIYAMMANA AGRAHARA BELLANDUR, BANGALORE - 560 103. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SHREEHARI KUTSA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HMT BHAWAN GST COMMISSIONERATE BLOCK 59, HMT BHAVAN, 3TH FLOOR, BALLARI ROAD DENA BANK COLONY, GANGANAGAR, 59 DENA BANK COLONY, ARMANE NAGAR BENGALURU , KARNATAKA - 560 032. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE (20(4), BANGALORE HMT BHAWAN GST COMMISSIONERATE BLOCK 59, HMT BHAVAN, 3TH FLOOR, BALLARI ROAD DENA BANK COLONY, G ANGANAGAR 59 DENA BANK COLONY, ARMANE NAGAR BENGALURU KARNATAKA – 560 032. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI E I, SANMATHI, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSITITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:8062 WP No. 2944 of 2023 ORDERS DATED 31/12/2021 PASSED BY THE R-2 I.E., LD. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE (2)(4), BANGALORE, U/S 153 R.W.S 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND 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 response / reply along with all documents before respondent No.2 NC: 2024:KHC:8062 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:8062

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:8062 (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 are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same. JUDGE

GH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

More judgments on Section 153

All 1,265 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →