KURUKKAN PADDINNAREPURAYIL IRSHAD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)

WP/14875/2024HC KarnatakaKAHC01028436202428 August 2024Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR5 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, adopting a justice-oriented approach and without expressing an opinion on the merits of the rival contentions, allowed the petition. The Court set aside the impugned assessment order dated 15.03.2024 and the accompanying notice. The Court placed on record the petitioner's submission to unconditionally withdraw the appeal filed before the Commissioner (Appeals). The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration afresh, in accordance with law, after providing an opportunity to the petitioner to submit his reply along with documents. The petitioner was permitted to submit his reply. The Court did not decide on the merits of the assessment itself, focusing on providing an opportunity to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kurukkan Paddinnarepurayil Irshad, proprietor of M/s Lia Agro Foods, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging an assessment order dated 15.03.2024 passed by the Assessing Officer (2nd Respondent). The petitioner contended that he had entrusted his tax matters to a Tax Practitioner who failed to respond to notices from the Assessing Officer, leading to an ex-parte assessment order. The petitioner sought to quash this order or, in the alternative, for a direction to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to dispose of his appeal and to stay any demand until then. The petitioner also stated that he would unconditionally withdraw his appeal filed before the Commissioner (Appeals). The respondents supported the impugned order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order dated 15.03.2024 passed by the Assessing Officer (2nd Respondent) is liable to be quashed on the grounds of procedural irregularity and lack of opportunity to the assessee? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the ex-parte assessment order was passed due to the negligence of his Tax Practitioner, who failed to respond to notices. The assessee claimed bonafide reasons and unavoidable circumstances, seeking an opportunity to present his case before the Assessing Officer. The assessee also stated they would withdraw their appeal filed before the Commissioner (Appeals). Revenue's Contention: The revenue supported the impugned order and argued that the writ petition lacked merit and was liable to be dismissed.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

NC: 2024:KHC:34625 WP No. 14875 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.14875 OF 2024 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

KURUKKAN PADDINNAREPURAYIL IRSHAD, S/O. H. MUHAMMED ASHRAF, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, PROP. M/S LIA AGRO FOODS, APMC YARD, ARAKALGUDU, HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT – 573 102. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MAHESH R UPPIN, ADVOCATE) AND:

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, ROOM NO.356, C.R.BUILDING, I.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI – 110 002.

ASSESSING OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI – 110 002.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD – 1 AND TPS, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, 2ND STAGE, BELUR ROAD, HASSAN – 573 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. THIRUMALESH, ADVOCATE)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUITION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 15/03/2024 BEARING NO.ITBA/AST/S/147/2023-24/ 1062676673(1) PASSED BY THE R2 MARKED AS ANNEXURE-B BY ISSUING A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND ETC.

Digitally signed by LEELAVATHI S R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

NC: 2024:KHC:34625 WP No. 14875 of 2024

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL ORDER

In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

“i) Quash the Assessment Order dated 15.03.2024 bearing No. ITBA/AST/S/147/2023-24/ 1062676673(1) passed by the 2nd Respondent marked as ANNEXURE-‘B’ by issuing a writ in the nature of Certiorari; or in the alternative.

ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus by directing the 1st Respondent to dispose off the appeal ANNEXURE-“D” filed by the Petitioner in the e-portal bearing Acknowledgment No.115725461130423 dated 14.04.2024 within a period or three months and till the disposal of the said appeal, not to make any demand of Income Tax from the petitioner; and

iii) Grant such other relief as may be deemed fit to grant under the circumstances of the case in the interest of equity and justice.”

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents 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

- 3 -

NC: 2024:KHC:34625 WP No. 14875 of 2024

counsel for the petitioner submits that he had entrusted the matter to his Tax Practitioner, who did not respond to the notices of the respondent No.2 – Assessing Officer and contest the proceedings on behalf of the petitioner, which ultimately culminated in the impugned exparte order being passed against the petitioner. It is submitted that if one more opportunity is granted in favour of the petitioner by setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter back to respondent No.2 for consideration afresh in accordance with law, the petitioner would submit his reply / response along with documents and contest the proceedings. It is also submitted that the appeal filed by the petitioner in Form No.35 would be unconditionally withdrawn by the petitioner. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would support the impugned order and submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. Though several contentions have been urged by both sides in support of their respective claims, in the light of specific assertion on the part of the petitioner that he could not contest the proceedings due to the matter being entrusted to the Tax Practitioner and due to bonafied reasons, unavoidable

- 4 -

NC: 2024:KHC:34625 WP No. 14875 of 2024

circumstances and sufficient cause, without expressing any opinion on the merits / demerits of the rival contentions and by adopting a justice oriented approach and also in order to provide an opportunity to the petitioner, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order at Annexure – B dated 15.03.2024 and remit the matter back to respondent No.2 – Assessing Officer and issue further directions in this regard. 6. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned order at Annexure – B and notice at Annexure – C both dated 15.03.2024 are hereby set aside. (iii) The submission made on behalf of the petitioner that he would unconditionally withdraw the appeal is hereby placed on record. (iv) Matter is remitted back to respondent No.2 – Assessing Officer for reconsideration afresh, in accordance with law, after providing an opportunity to the petitioner to submit his reply along with documents, etc.,

- 5 -

NC: 2024:KHC:34625 WP No. 14875 of 2024

(v) Petitioner is permitted to submit his reply along with documents, if any, to the notice/s.

Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

SV; List No.: 1 Sl No.: 76

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →