SHRI. AJIT S/O. APPASAHEB PADASALI vs. THE ADDITIONAL / JOINT / DEPUTY / ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP/101738/2022HC KarnatakaKAHC02006530202204 April 2025Bench: JYOTI MULIMANI4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the assessment order and demand notice were liable to be quashed. The Court noted that a reply of approximately 23 pages, submitted by the assessee through the e-portal, was furnished along with the Writ Petition as Annexure-C. The assessment order, however, merely stated that the assessee failed to submit documentary evidence without detailing any consideration of the submitted reply. Consequently, the Court found that the matter required a remand. The assessment order dated 24.03.2022 and the demand notice dated 24.03.2022 were quashed. The matter was remanded to the respondent to the stage of the reply to the notice under Section 144. The petitioner was granted liberty to submit his reply through the e-portal, and the respondent was directed to issue notice to the petitioner calling for all necessary documents and information. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shri. Ajit S/o. Appasaheb Padasali, filed a Writ Petition challenging an assessment order dated 24.03.2022 and a demand notice dated 24.03.2022, both issued by the Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, National E-Assessment Centre, New Delhi. The assessment year in question is 2017-18. A show cause notice under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was issued to the petitioner on 28.02.2022. The petitioner claims to have replied to this notice by furnishing necessary documents. However, the Department proceeded to pass the assessment order and subsequently issued a demand notice under Section 156. The petitioner's grievance is that the Department failed to consider his reply.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order and demand notice issued by the respondent are liable to be quashed on the ground that the respondent failed to consider the reply submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice issued under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 144 and Section 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's contention: The Department has not considered the reply submitted by the petitioner and erroneously proceeded with the matter, thus seeking a remand. Revenue's contention: There is nothing on record to show that the assessee had uploaded his reply through the e-portal, and no acknowledgement has been furnished to substantiate the same.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 156

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:6015 WP No. 101738 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 101738 OF 2022 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

SHRI. AJIT S/O. APPASAHEB PADASALI, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: HOUSE NO.100, MAITRI GALLI, JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587 301. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANGRAM S. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT /DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI-110 001. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M. THIRUMALESH AND SMT. ROOPA ANVEKAR, ADVOCATES)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR HEARING- INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:6015 WP No. 101738 of 2022

ORAL ORDER

Sri.Sangram S.Kulkarni., counsel for the petitioner and Sri.M.Thirumalesh., counsel for the respondent have appeared in person. 2. The captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the assessment order dated 24.03.2022 vide Annexure-D and demand notice dated 24.03.2022 vide Annexure-E issued by the respondent. 3. A show cause notice under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued to the petitioner for the assessment year 2017-18 on 28.02.2022. The assessee suitably replied by furnishing the necessary documents. The Department passed the assessment order on 24.03.2022. Subsequently, demand notice under Section 156 came to be issued. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with utmost care.

- 3 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:6015 WP No. 101738 of 2022

5.

The grievance of the petitioner is that the Department has not considered the reply submitted by him and erroneously proceeded with the matter. Hence, the petitioner is seeking a remand. Counsel Sri.M.Thirumalesh in presenting his arguments vehemently contends that there is nothing on record to show that the assessee had uploaded his reply through E-portal and no acknowledgement has been furnished to substantiate the same. Counsel, therefore, submits that an appropriate order may be passed. 6. A true hard copy of the reply submitted by the assessee through e-portal is furnished along with Writ Petition and the same is marked as Annexure-C. It runs about 23 pages. In the assessment order, except for stating that the assessee has failed to submit documentary evidence to substantiate his claim or source of cash deposit, nothing in detail has been considered by the Department. Hence, the matter requires a remand. 7. The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The assessment order dated 24.03.2022 passed by the respondent and the

- 4 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:6015 WP No. 101738 of 2022

demand notice dated 24.03.2022 issued by the respondent vide Annexures-D and E are quashed. The matter is remanded to the respondent to the stage of reply to the notice under Section 144 of the Act. The petitioner is at the liberty to submit his reply through e-portal. A direction is issued to the respondent to issue notice to the petitioner calling all the documents and the information. 8. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed and remanded. Because of the disposal of the Writ Petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any are disposed of, and the interim order, if any granted by this Court stands discharged.

Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE

MRP/RH LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 32

More judgments on Section 156

All 694 judgments and leading authorities on Section 156 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →