Sujata Annadevara, vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

We have heard sri A.v.Raghuralrl, learned counsel appearing for the r,vrit petitioner and Sri Vijay K Punna, learned Senior standing counsel for Income Tax appearing for respond.ents, and perused the record'

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that she is an individual assessee with PAN No.AHGPA9656B; that when she applied for PAN, as she resided at her aunt's house i'e', Flat No.19, Road No.5, Chand.rapuri Colony, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad, she mentioned the said address in her PAN application; that her

It is further contended by the petitioner, that out of her savings, which suffered tax in Si,gapore, she transferred amounts to hc-r pare.ts and brothers in India. who in turn withdrerv the same and re-deposited ir-r to her-t*,o bank accounts viz., one in ICICI Bank a,d a,orher i. A,dhra Bank (presently union Bank or- India); and tl-rat for the Assessment year 20rs-L6, the total deposits made r\/ere Rs.20,93,222/- in ICICI Beink account and Rs.27,38,1OO/- in Anclhra Bank account. 5' It is llrther averred by the petitioner that the 1"t respopclent, who is not the jurisdictional assessing authority, has issued a notice under Section l4BA of tire Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Acr'), dt. 19.o3.2o22, alleging rhat her total deposits in the above mentionecl two bank accounts were of Rs.62 ,64,s22/- anct sought explanation, as to rvhy a notice under Section 14g of the Act should not be issued to reopen the assessment for the saicl assessment year. { r

Petitioner further contends that the said sho'ff-cause notice r,vas sent to a inactive e-mail address of the petitioner, rvhich the petitioner no longer used; that the respondents-authorities have also sent the shor,v-cause notice to the registened address of the petitioner at Hyderabad, which was received only in the month of April, 2022, and that there was no proper service of rtotice; and due to the delayed and improper service, she was deprived of an opportunity- to respond to the said notice.

Petitioner further contended that the lst respondent has no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment of the petitioner for the assessment year 2015-16 and pass the impugned order. B. Aggrieved by the reopening of the assessment and the consequential order passed under Section 14BA(d), the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present Writ Petition, seeking to set aside the same, as being bad in law, on the following grounds: i) that the 1"t respondent has no territorial jurisdiction; ii) that there is no proper service of notice as envisaged under Section ia8A(a) of the Act; iii) that in fact, in the two bank accounts of the petitioner maintained with Andhra Bank bearing Account

The 1" grouncr urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Hyderabad and the address mentioned in the pAN is also at Hyderabad, as such, the 1't responclent, who is the authority at Bangalore, lacks jurisdiction.

The 2",; ground urged b-r,, the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the 1"t respondent failed to afford a proper opportunity, as mandated b], Sectior-r 14BA(b) of the Act, as the notice issued to the petitioner \\ras se^,ed in the month of April, 2022 i.e., after the impugned order came to be passed, and thus, the 1st respondent has violated the principres of naturar justice, and therefore, the orders passed b1, the 1st respondent are bad in law and are liable to be set aside 1 1. Insofar as the 3',r ground, learned counser for the petitioner contended that only in order to bring the amount into the bracket of Section 149(1)(b) of the Act, the lsr respondent arbitrarily added

Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the decision rendered by the High Court of Madras in the case of Chartt K.Bagadia a. ACIT2, wherein it was held that the Authority without jurisdiction cannot open the assessment of an individual and that the orders so passed, are invalid and bad in law, and prayed this Court to aliow the writ petition, by quashing the impugned order. t (2017)396 ITR 167 (Gujarat) 2 (2012]|448 ITR 563

Per contra, rearned Standing counser appearing for respondents, insofar as the 1sr contention of the petitioner that the 1"t respondent has the jurisdiction to pass the impugned order, has surbmitted that as per the petitioner's .otrvn contention, she previously worked in Bangalore, and as such, the 1"t respondent has got territorial jurisdiction and hence, the impugned ord.er passed by the ]"t respondent cannot be quashed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. 15' As regards the contention of the petitioner that notice under Section 148 of the Act was not properry ser'ed on the petitioner, learned Senior Standing Counsel subrnittecl that notices were duty served on the petitioner through her registerecr e-mail ID, rvhicrr is sufficient in terms of the provisions of the Act and Rules rrrade there under. Further, the notices were sent to the petitioner both throurgh her e-mail address and by post, at the registered e_mail and postal address of the petitioner, ancl therefore, the said contention of the petitioner is untenable. 16' As reqards the thircl conterrtion of the petition.er that the 1st respondent a-dcied an arnount of Rs.L7,oO,ooof -, without any evidence of dep,rsit into her bank accounrs, prlrporteclly to bring

We have given earnest consideration to the submissions made on either side and have perused the record'

In respect of the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the 1.t respondent lacks jurisdiction to pass the impugned order, the petitioner at one point of time was gainfully employed in Bangalore and she has made a request to transfer/migrate the PAN from 4th respondent to 3'd respondent on 28.03.2023, with acknowledgment No. 1 159822 on O8.04.2023, but however, oo 2L.O4.2023, the 3'd respondent uide communication, in DIN & Letter No.ITBA/ADM/ S 12612A23- 24/tO52255765(1) closed the grievance directing the petitioner

As regards the second ground raised by the petitioner, it is settled position of law that once the notice is taken out at the registered address as well as the registered e-mair address of an assessee, it is sufficient and deemed sen,ice under the Rules made under the Act. Therefore, both first and second grounds are answered against the petitio,er and in fa'our of the respondents/Revenue. 20. corning to the third ground ur.ged by the petitioner that rhe addition of Rs.17,oo,o00/- is not reflected in any of her accounts, from a perusal of the account stateme,ts produced betbre this court for the relevant period, it is evident that the said arnount does not appear in any of the petitioner's bank statements, and the 1"t respondent-authority e><cept stati.g that the income of Rs'62,64 ,572 /- escaped frorn assessment is above Rs'5o,00,ooof ', it wourd fail under Secti,n r4g(r)(b) of the Act, and he has not stated the basis for arriving at the said amount of 9 Rs.17,00,000/- tor,vards cash deposit in the petitioner's bank accounts.

Further, as regards aforesaid contention of the petitioner, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents fairly acceded that there was no proper evidence piaced in respect of addition of amount of Rs.17,00,o00/- in the order under Section 148A(d) ol the Act and stated that the l't respondent might have taken the said deposits from other bank account of the petitioner.

It is well-settled that when the tax authorities include a particular amount as taxable income, the onus lies on them to show as to how such an amount is deri'u'ed and reflected in the accounts of the assessee. in the present case, the learned Senior standing counsel has not produced any concrete material to support the addition made by the 1"t respondent in the assessment order, dt.30.O 3.2022. 23. In such circumstances, the contention of the petitioner that the said amount was added merely to increase the income from Rs.47,62,072/- to over and above Rs.50,00,000/-, so as to bring

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to COStS. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. //// - SD/.A. JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,1 (-/ SECTION OFFICER to'',. lry-1ry-11e rax officer' W"irt!?)i'lu5'Hrthavan' No 5e' Bellary Road' Ganganagar, Bengaluru' Karr 2.ThePrincipalChiefCo.mqrgslcineroflncomeTax(PCCIT),Karnatakaand Goa, c-3, oon, cynthia, 35, ;ii;r;." n"ro, e";;'rluiu, (arnataka 560025'

The lncome Tax Officel Ward-1(f )' l$ernational Taxation' BMTC-Building' B0 Feet Road, oth gtock, Koraming'at'i, aengaruru, Karnataka 560 095' 4.ThelncomeTaxofficer,lnternationalTaxation-l,SthFloor,AayakarBhavan, a' a;s6eei aug'r't, HvO"rabad 500 004'

One CC to Sri A' V' Raghu Ram' Advocate IOPUC]

One CC to SriVijhay K Punna' SC for lncome Tax[OPUC]

Two CD CoPies TJ LS T-I. I