SRI HANUMANTHAPURA RUDRAPPA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP/17374/2023HC KarnatakaKAHC01040579202306 August 2024Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR5 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Karnataka found merit in the petitioner's assertion that he did not receive the notice under Section 148A(b) of the IT Act, dated March 19, 2022, and that his failure to respond was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances, and sufficient cause. Acknowledging the petitioner's plea for another opportunity, the Court deemed it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned assessment order dated March 21, 2023, and the order passed under Section 148A(d) dated March 31, 2022. The matter was remitted back to the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Respondent No. 1) for reconsideration. The petitioner was granted liberty to submit additional pleadings and documents, which the respondent was directed to consider before proceeding further in accordance with the law. The Court explicitly allowed the petition and set aside the impugned orders.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sri. Hanumanthapura Rudrappa Veere Gowda, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging an assessment order dated March 21, 2023, passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (R3) for Assessment Year 2015-16. The petitioner also sought to quash an order dated March 31, 2022, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (R1) under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The core of the petitioner's grievance was that he did not receive the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the IT Act dated March 19, 2022, and therefore, could not submit a reply or response with supporting documents. The petitioner claimed this omission was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances, and sufficient cause.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order dated March 21, 2023, and the order under Section 148A(d) dated March 31, 2022, passed by the respondents for Assessment Year 2015-16 are liable to be quashed on the ground that the petitioner did not receive the notice under Section 148A(b) of the IT Act, dated March 19, 2022, and consequently could not submit a reply. (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148A of the IT Act). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notice under Section 148A(b) was not received, leading to an inability to respond due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances, and sufficient cause. The petitioner sought an opportunity to submit a reply and have the matter reconsidered. Revenue's Contention: The respondents contended that the petition had no merit and was liable to be dismissed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148A(b),Section 148A(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

NC: 2024:KHC:31188 WP No. 17374 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 17374 OF 2023 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

SRI. HANUMANTHAPURA RUDRAPPA VEERE GOWDA, S/O S RUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.7, SONNEGOWDA COMPLEX, KODIGEHALLI, BANGALORE 560 092. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NAG HARISH., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -6(2), BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU 560 095.

2.

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU 560 095.

3.

ASSESSING OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NO. 412-413, 1ST FLOOR, OPP METRO PILLAR NO. 793, DWARAKA MOR, NEW DELHI 110 059. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.M DILIP.,ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) QUASH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 21/03/2023 BEARING NO. ITBA / AST / S/ 147/2022-23 / 1051078747 (1) ANNEXURE-H1 PASSED BY R3 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 AND ETC.,

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

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

- 2 -

NC: 2024:KHC:31188 WP No. 17374 of 2023

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL ORDER

In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

“ a. Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the assessment order dated: 21.03.2023 bearing No.ITBA/AST/S/147/ 2022-23/1051078747(1) Annexure-H1 passed by third respondent for Assessment year 2015-16.

b. Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the order u/s. 148A(d) of the IT Act bearing No.ITBA/ST/F/148A/2021- 22/10422984889(1) dated: 31.03.2022 Annexure-F2 passed by first respondent for Assessment year 2015-16.

c. Issue such other writ of direction as this Hon’ble Court deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

2.

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 memorandum of petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that notice issued by the respondents under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘IT Act’), dated 19.03.2022 at Annexure-F1 was not received by petitioner and he was not aware of the notice and

- 3 -

NC: 2024:KHC:31188 WP No. 17374 of 2023

consequently, petitioner could not submit its reply / response along with documents to the said notice. It is submitted that the inability and omission on the part of the petitioner to submit reply / response along with documents to the Section 148A(b) notice was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause and as such, if one more opportunity is provided to the petitioner to do so by setting aside the impugned orders and notices, the petitioner would do so and respondents may be directed to proceed further in accordance with law. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that it is an undisputed fact that petitioner has not submitted reply / response along with documents to Section 148A(b) notice. Under these circumstances, in view of the specific assertion on the part of the petitioner that his inability and omission to submit a reply along with documents to Section 148A(b) notice was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause and if one more opportunity is granted, petitioner would submit reply

- 4 -

NC: 2024:KHC:31188 WP No. 17374 of 2023

along with documents, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned assessment order dated 21.03.2023 at Annexure-H1 and the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) of the IT Act, dated 31.03.2022 at Annexure-F2 and subsequent notice / orders, etc., and remit the matter back to respondent No.1 for reconsideration afresh from the stage of submitting of reply by the petitioner to Section 148A(b) notice and to proceed further in accordance with law. 6. In the result, pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned assessment order dated 21.03.2023 at Annexure-H1 and the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) of the IT Act, dated 31.03.2022 at Annexure-F2 are hereby set aside. (iii) Matter is remitted back to respondent No.1 for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law from the stage of submitting of reply to the Show Cause Notice under Section 148A(b) of the IT Act dated 19.03.2022 at Annexure- F1.

- 5 -

NC: 2024:KHC:31188 WP No. 17374 of 2023

(iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit additional pleadings, documents, etc., to the respondent, who shall consider the same and proceed further in accordance with law.

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

BMC: List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39

More judgments on Section 148A

All 3,543 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →