SRI PURUSHOTHAM MUNIPILLAPPA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP/21955/2022HC KarnatakaKAHC01050766202220 March 2025Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR5 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that a perusal of the impugned order indicated that the replies and documents submitted by the petitioner had not been considered or appreciated in their proper perspective. Furthermore, the Court noted that the impugned order was passed without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as envisaged under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Considering the petitioner's assertion that they would produce additional pleadings and documents if given another opportunity, and adopting a justice-oriented approach, the Court found it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to R1 for reconsideration. The Court reserved liberty for the petitioner to file additional pleadings and documents, which R1 was directed to consider, and to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before proceeding in accordance with law.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sri Purushotham Munipillappa, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated September 27, 2022, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (R1) for Assessment Year 2013-14. This order was passed after an earlier ex-parte assessment order from September 28, 2021, was set aside by the High Court in W.P.No.20005/2021 and remitted back to R1. Subsequently, R1 issued notices on May 5, 2022, and August 18, 2022, to which the petitioner submitted several replies and documents between May 23, 2022, and September 24, 2022. The petitioner's grievance was that R1 passed the impugned order without providing a proper opportunity of hearing or adequately considering the submitted replies and documents.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order dated September 27, 2022, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (R1) for Assessment Year 2013-14 is liable to be quashed on the grounds that it was passed without providing the petitioner an adequate opportunity of hearing and without properly considering the replies and documents submitted by the petitioner, as envisaged under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned assessment order was passed without providing a proper opportunity of hearing and without adequately considering the replies and documents submitted. The petitioner further contended that if the matter were remitted back, they would submit additional pleadings and documents. Revenue's Contention: The revenue argued that there was no merit in the petition and that it was liable to be dismissed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:11853 WP No. 21955 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 21955 OF 2022 (T-IT)

BETWEEN:

SRI PURUSHOTHAM MUNIPILLAPPA S/O LATE MUNI PILLAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT NO.176, CQAL LAYOUT NEAR UCO BANK SAHAKAR NAGAR BANGALORE-560 092. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. G.S. NAGHARISH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) C R BUILDING QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE-560 001.

PRL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE,

C R BUILDING QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE-560 001. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAVI RAJ Y.V. AND SRI. M. DILIP, ADVOCATES)

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTIN OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 27.09.2022 PASSED BY THE R1 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013.14 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-G

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka

- 2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:11853 WP No. 21955 of 2022

ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:- “a. Issue a Writ of certiorari to quash the assessment order dated 27.09.2022 passed by first respondent for the Assessment Year 2013-14 produced as Annexure-G, bearing No.ITBA/GEA/M/260A/2022- 23/1046024775(1).

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

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents-revenue and perused the material on record.

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondents passed an ex-parte assessment order dated 28.09.2021 against the petitioner, who challenged the same in W.P.No.20005/2021 before this Court, which allowed the said petition by setting aside the exparte assessment order and remitting the matter back to respondent No.1 for reconsideration afresh, in accordance with law. In pursuance of the same, respondents issued notices dated 05.05.2022 and 18.08.2022, to which the petitioner submitted replies dated 23.05.2022,

- 3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:11853 WP No. 21955 of 2022

20.07.2022, 18.08.2022, 06.09.2022, 15.09.2022 and 24.09.2022, putting forth various contentions and producing documents. It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite the aforesaid facts and circumstances, respondent No.1 has proceeded to pass the impugned assessment order without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner nor properly or correctly considering or appreciating the replies and documents submitted by the petitioner, who is before this Court by way of the present petition inter alia contending that if the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent for reconsideration afresh, the petitioner would submit additional pleadings and documents in support of his claim and respondent No.1 may be directed to reconsider the matter afresh, in accordance with law.

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.

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that subsequent to the remand order dated 25.11.2021 passed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation, the respondents issued notices, to which the petitioner submitted detailed replies along with

- 4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:11853 WP No. 21955 of 2022

documents. However, a perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the replies and documents submitted by the petitioner have not been considered or appreciated by respondent No.1 in their proper perspective and respondent No.1 has proceeded to pass the impugned order without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as envisaged under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and in the light of the specific assertion on the part of the petitioner that if one more opportunity is provided, petitioner would produce additional pleadings and documents, by adopting a justice oriented approach, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to respondent No.1 for reconsideration afresh, in accordance with law.

In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER

(i) Petition is hereby allowed.

(ii) The impugned order at Annexure-G dated 27.09.2022 is hereby set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted back to respondent No.1 for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.

- 5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:11853 WP No. 21955 of 2022

(iii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to file additional pleadings, documents etc., which shall be considered by respondent No.1, who shall provide an opportunity of hearing in favour of the petitioner and proceed further, in accordance with law.

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

Srl./BMC

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →