M/S ELEGANT BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP/23042/2024HC KarnatakaKAHC01048668202403 September 2024Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR7 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Karnataka, without expressing an opinion on the merits of the rival contentions, found it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned assessment order and consequential proceedings, including the bank attachment notices. The Court noted that the assessment order was an ex-parte order passed without the petitioner contesting the proceedings and was neither digitally nor physically signed. Citing the principles of natural justice and the lack of proper service, the Court decided to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer (respondent No.1) for reconsideration. The petitioner was granted liberty to submit their responses and was directed to deposit Rs. 50 Lakhs before the Assessing Officer, which would be subject to the final outcome of the proceedings. The Court quashed the assessment order, computation sheet, notice of demand, penalty show cause notice, and all bank attachment notices.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s Elegant Builders and Developers, a partnership firm, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging bank attachment notices dated June 28, 2024, issued under Section 226(3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (1st respondent). The petitioner also sought to quash an assessment order dated December 22, 2018, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2nd respondent) under Section 143(3) for assessment year 2016-17, along with consequential computation sheet, notice of demand, and show cause notice for penalty. The petitioner contended that they were unaware of the assessment order until the bank accounts were attached and that the assessment order was passed ex-parte, in violation of natural justice, and was neither digitally nor physically signed nor served. The revenue contended that notices were uploaded on the e-portal and the petitioner was aware.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned assessment order dated December 22, 2018, passed under Section 143(3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, for assessment year 2016-17, is liable to be quashed on the grounds of being ex-parte, violation of principles of natural justice, and lack of proper service and signature. Assessee's arguments: - The assessment order was passed ex-parte without providing a reasonable opportunity to be heard. - The order was neither digitally nor physically signed and was not served on the petitioner. - The petitioner was unaware of the assessment order until bank accounts were attached on June 28, 2024. - Relied on the High Court's judgments in Begur Sinappa Venkatesh Vs. The Income Tax Officer and Sri.Narayanappa Gangadhar Vs. Income Tax Officer. - Sought an opportunity to file an appeal before the appellate authority without the issue of limitation being raised. Revenue's arguments: - Notices were uploaded on the e-portal, and the petitioner was aware of the proceedings. - The petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 226(3),Section 143(3),Section 271(1)(c),Section 274

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

NC: 2024:KHC:35732 WP No. 23042 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 23042 OF 2024 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

M/S ELEGANT BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS PARTNER, MR.M. SUBRAMANI S/O OF MR. MOTHULU, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS (SENIOR CITIZENS BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED)

HAVING OFFICE AT No.34 10TH B MAIN, 3RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR III BLOCK, S.O., BANGALORE - 560 011. (UNDER REGISTERED INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932). …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANDEEP HUILGOL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7(1) (1), BANGALORE BMTC BUILDING, 80 FT ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU - 560 095.

2.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7(2)(1), BANGALORE BMTC BUILDING, 80 FT ROAD 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU - 560 095.

3.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX (APPEALS) NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT ROOM No.245-A, NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI -110 001.

Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

- 2 -

NC: 2024:KHC:35732 WP No. 23042 of 2024

4.

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, BENGALURU BMTC BUILDING, 80 FT ROAD 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU - 560 095. …RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI E I SANMATHI, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED BANK ATTACHMENT NOTICE DATED 28.06.2024 BEARING DIN AND LETTER No.ITBA/COM/F/17/2024- 25/1066172554(1) ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 226(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 TO BANK OF BARODA (ANNEXURE-A1) AND ETC.,

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

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

ORAL ORDER

In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs: "(i) Quashing the impugned bank Attachment notice dated 28.06.2024 bearing din and letter No. ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-25/1066172554(1) issued by the 1st respondent under Section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to Bank of Baroda (Annexure-'a- 1');

(ii) Quashing the impugned bank Attachment notice dated 28.06.2024 bearing ITBA/COM/F/17/2024- 25/1066172256(1) issued by the 1st respondent under the Income-tax Act, 1961 to State Bank of India (Annexure-A2);

(iii) Quashing the impugned bank Attachment notice dated 28.06.2024 bearing ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-

- 3 -

NC: 2024:KHC:35732 WP No. 23042 of 2024

25/1066170945(1) issued by the 1st respondent under Section 226(3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 to Canara Bank (Annexure-'A-3');

(iv) Quashing the impugned Bank Attachment notice dated 28.06.2024 bearing ITBA/COM/F/17/2024- 25/1066170650(1) issued by the 1st respondent under Section 226(3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 to Canara Bank (Annexure-A4);

(v) Quashing the impugned Assessment order dated 22.12.2018 bearing order No. ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2018- 19/1014493407(1) passed by the 2nd respondent under Section 143(3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2016- 17 (Annexure 'S-1');

(vi) Quashing the impugned computation sheet dated 22.12.2018 bearing Document No. ITBA/AST/S/115/2018- 19/1014493422(1) issued by the 2nd respondent for the Assessment year 2016-17 (Annexure 'S-2');

(vii) Quashing the impugned notice of demand dated 22.12.2018 bearing notice No. ITBA/AST/S/156/2018- 19/1014493431(1) issued by the 2nd respondent for the Assessment year 2016-17 (Annexure 'S-3');

(viii) Quashing the impugned show cause notice for penalty dated 22.12.2018 bearing notice No. ITBA/PNL/S/271(1)(c)/2018-19/1014493437(1)issued by Respondent No. 2 under Section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment year 2016-17 (Annexure-V);

(ix) In the alternative to the paras (v) to (vii) above, permitting the Petitioner to file an appeal against impugned assessment order dated 22.12.2018 bearing order no. itba/ast/s/143(3)/2018- 19/1014493407(1) passed by the 2nd Respondent under section 143(3) of the Income- Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment year 2016-17 (Annexure 'S-1') before respondent No.3 or the concerned appellate authority, and directing the said first appellate authority to

- 4 -

NC: 2024:KHC:35732 WP No. 23042 of 2024

consider the appeal on merits without raising the issue of limitation, and to then dispose off the said appeal at the earliest and in accordance with law; and

(x) Pass such order or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interests of justice and equity."

2.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that subsequent to the petitioner submitting his response on 10.12.2018 to the notice dated 29.10.2018 issued by respondent No.1, the petitioner was not subsequently notified about the proceedings and could not address the same, which culminated in the impugned assessment order dated 22.12.2018. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that it was not aware of the aforesaid impugned assessment order till there was an attachment of his Bank accounts on 28.06.2024, pursuant to which the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition 4. It is submitted that apart from the fact that the impugned assessment order is an exparte assessment order, which was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and without providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the

- 5 -

NC: 2024:KHC:35732 WP No. 23042 of 2024

petitioner, the impugned assessment order is neither digitally signed nor physically signed nor the same is served on the petitioner and in the light of the judgment of this Court in the case of Begur Sinappa Venkatesh Vs. The Income Tax Officer and another passed in W.P.No.20807/2023, which was followed by this Court in the case of Sri.Narayanappa Gangadhar Vs. Income Tax Officer and Ors, the aforesaid impugned assessment order is illegal and the same deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that it is necessary to provide one more opportunity to the petitioner by setting aside the impugned assessment order and remitting back the matter to respondent No.1 for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 would support the impugned order and submit that notices were uploaded by the respondent in e-portal and the petitioner was aware of the same and also submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. A perusal of the impugned assessment order dated 22.12.2018 will indicate that apart from the fact that the same is neither digitally signed nor physically signed, the same is

- 6 -

NC: 2024:KHC:35732 WP No. 23042 of 2024

undisputedly exparte assessment order, which is passed without petitioner contesting in the proceedings. 7. Under these circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned assessment order and consequential proceedings, orders, notices, etc., and remit the matter back to respondent No.1 for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. 8. In the result, I pass the following: (i) The petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned Assessment Order at Annexure - S1 dated 22.12.2018, Computation Sheet at Annexure - S2 dated 22.12.2018, Notice of Demand at Annexure - S3 dated 22.12.2018, Show Cause Notice for Penalty at Annexure - V dated 22.12.2018, Bank Attachment Notice at Annexure - A1 dated 28.06.2024, Bank Attachment Notice at Annexure - A2 dated 28.06.2024, Bank Attachment Notice at Annexure - A3 dated 28.06.2024 and Bank Attachment

- 7 -

NC: 2024:KHC:35732 WP No. 23042 of 2024

Notice at Annexure - A4 dated 28.06.2024 are hereby quashed. (iii) The matter is remitted back to respondent No.1 for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. (iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit replies, responses, pleadings, documents, etc., to the respondent, who shall consider the same by providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and proceed further in accordance with law. (v) Petitioner is directed to deposit Rs.50 Lakhs before respondent No.1 within a period of four weeks from today; It is needless to state that the amount deposited by the petitioner would be subject to the final outcome of the proceedings before respondent No.1.

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

MDS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18

More judgments on Section 226(3)

All 95 judgments and leading authorities on Section 226(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →