USMAN ASIF BAIG S/O USMAN BAIG, vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

PDF · subscribers
WP/17375/2024HC KarnatakaKAHC01036712202410 July 2024Bench: S SUNIL DUTT YADAV4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court set aside the Notice under Section 148 (Annexure-A) and the Order passed under Section 148A(d) (Annexure-A1). The Court decided to relegate the matter to the stage of the petitioner filing a reply to the Notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's contention that the belated receipt of the Section 148A(b) notice, which resulted in a period of less than seven days for response, caused prejudice. The Court found merit in affording the petitioner an opportunity to make out his reply to the Section 148A(b) notice. All contentions of both parties were kept open. The petitioner was directed to appear before the respondent No.2 on 05.08.2024. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the matter was remanded for reconsideration at an earlier stage.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Usman Asif Baig, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 25/03/2024 (DIN NO. ITBA/AST/F/148A/2023-24/1063325491(1)) issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. During the hearing, the petitioner was permitted to amend the prayer to also challenge an order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act. The petitioner contended that a notice under Section 148A(b) dated 13.03.2024, seeking a response by 21.03.2024, reached him belatedly due to redirection to his Bengaluru address, leaving him with less than seven days to reply, causing prejudice. He argued that if given an opportunity to reply, he could demonstrate that the proceedings should be dropped.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is liable to be quashed on grounds of technical defects, including non-signing. 2. Whether the Order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is liable to be quashed. 3. Whether the petitioner was prejudiced by the short period granted to reply to the Notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act, due to its belated receipt. Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the Notice under Section 148 was technically defective due to non-signing. He further contended that the Notice under Section 148A(b) was received late, affording him less than seven days to respond, which caused serious prejudice. He claimed that an opportunity to reply would allow him to demonstrate that the proceedings should be dropped. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record specific contentions made by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

NC: 2024:KHC:26697 WP No. 17375 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 17375 OF 2024 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

USMAN ASIF BAIG S/O USMAN BAIG, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS NO.1, 157/C, BANGALORE ROAD, KOLLEGALA, KARNATAKA CHAMARAJANAGARA DISRICT-571440, PRESENTLY R/AT: NO.13, NEW POST OFFICE ROAD, YADIYUR, JAYANGARA 7TH BLOCK, BANGALORE-560082. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND:

1.

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 2ND FLOOR, LIC BUILDING, SAMPIGE ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560003.

2.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ITO CHAMARAJANAGAR-571440 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.THIRUMALESH, ADVOCATE)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE / ORDER DATED 25/03/2024 BEARING DIN NO. ITBA/AST/F/148A/2023-24/1063325491(1) VIDE ANNEXURE-A AS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND ISSUED WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

NC: 2024:KHC:26697 WP No. 17375 of 2024

ORDER

The petitioner has sought for setting aside the Notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') at Annexure-A. It is further contended that in light of the technical defects such as non-signing of the Notice under Section 148 of the Act, same is required to be set aside.

2.

At the time of hearing of the matter, petitioner has also sought to assail the Order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act at Annexure-A1. Such oral request is made at the time of hearing of the petition and the petitioner was permitted to amend the prayer column as well as assign separate annexure number to the Order under Section 148A(d) of the Act.

3.

It is the case of the petitioner that Notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act, though issued on 13.03.2024 seeking for response on 21.03.2024, which reached the petitioner belatedly as same Notice was redirected to the petitioner's address at Bengaluru and accordingly, the time

- 3 -

NC: 2024:KHC:26697 WP No. 17375 of 2024

available to make out reply to the Notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act, in effect being less than seven days, had caused serious prejudice.

4.

It is submitted that if the petitioner is afforded with an opportunity to make out his reply to Notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act, the petitioner would be in a position to demonstrate that proceedings are required to be dropped.

5.

Taking note of the contention raised, matter requires re-consideration by relegating the petitioner to the stage of reply to Notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act. Accordingly, Notice at Annexure-A and the Order at Annexure-A1 are set aside; the matter is relegated to the stage of reply to Notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act.

6.

Though the petitioner had initially assailed only Order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act. However, at the time of hearing of the matter, case is made out for affording an opportunity to the petitioner to make out reply

- 4 -

NC: 2024:KHC:26697 WP No. 17375 of 2024

to Notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act and accordingly the consequential proceedings are set aside.

All contentions are kept open.

The petitioner to appear before respondent No.2 on 05.08.2024.

Sd/- JUDGE

SMJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →