MRS KANCHAN AGARWAL vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP/2457/2019HC KarnatakaKAHC01001924201926 July 2019Bench: S.SUJATHA5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed the impugned reassessment order and consequential demand notice for Assessment Year 2011-12. The Court noted that the facts were similar to another writ petition (W.P.No.2456/2019) concerning the same assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14, where a similar order was quashed. The Court reasoned that the reassessment proceedings were concluded without considering the preliminary objections filed by the petitioner. Therefore, the matter was restored to the file of the respondent-Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to consider the preliminary objections filed by the petitioner and conclude the reassessment proceedings in accordance with the law, preferably within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. The issue of whether the reassessment order was validly passed without considering objections was decided in favor of the assessee.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mrs. Kanchan Agarwal, challenged a reassessment order and consequential demand notice for Assessment Year 2011-12, passed by the Income Tax Officer under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner had filed her return, and assessment proceedings were concluded. Subsequently, a notice under Section 148 was issued to reopen the assessment. Upon request, the reasons for reopening were provided. The petitioner filed preliminary objections on 27.12.2018. However, the reassessment order was passed on 24.12.2018, prior to the filing of these objections. The petitioner's grievance was that the Assessing Officer concluded reassessment proceedings without considering her preliminary objections, rendering the order invalid.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the reassessment order and consequential demand notice for Assessment Year 2011-12, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are valid when passed without considering the preliminary objections filed by the assessee? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the reassessment order was invalid as it was passed before her preliminary objections to the reasons for reopening were considered. She contended that she was not provided with sufficient opportunity to file objections, and the Assessing Officer proceeded to conclude the proceedings without disposing of the objections filed on 27.12.2018. Revenue's Contention: The revenue submitted that the reassessment order was passed on 24.12.2018, which was prior to the petitioner's preliminary objections filed on 27.12.2018. They stated that reasons for reopening were made available multiple times, and despite this, no objections were filed until after the reassessment order was passed. Therefore, the order could not be faulted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE: THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.2457/2019 (T – IT) BETWEEN:

Mrs. KANCHAN AGARWAL W/O Mr. NATWAR AGARWAL, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT LAXMI ROAD, 8TH CROSS, SHANTI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 027

... PETITIONER

[BY SRI HARISH V.S., ADV.]

AND:

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 7(2)(2), 3RD FLOOR, ROOM NO.320, BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA 80 FEET ROAD, BANGALORE-560 095

…RESPONDENT

[BY SRI E.I.SANMATHI, ADV.]

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF REASSESSMENT PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) R/W SECTION 147 OF THE ACT, RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-2012, DATED 24.12.2018 i.e., ANNEXURE-F AND THE CONSEQUENTIAL DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT, RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011- 2012, DATED 24.12.2018 i.e., ANNEXURE-G.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

- 2 - O R D E R

The petitioner has challenged the re-assessment order passed by the respondent under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2011-12 and consequential demand notice.

2.

The petitioner had filed return of income relating to the Assessment Year in question. The assessment proceedings were concluded under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act. Subsequently, notice was issued under Section 148 of the Act to reopen the assessment concluded. On the request made by the petitioner to furnish the reasons for reopening the assessment under Section 148 of the Act, reasons recorded were made available to the petitioner. Accordingly, preliminary objections and explanations were filed by the petitioner on 27.12.2018. However, the re-assessment proceedings were concluded by the

- 3 - respondent on 24.12.2018. It is the grievance of the petitioner that no sufficient opportunity was provided to him to file objections to the reasons recorded. The Assessing Officer proceeded to conclude the re- assessment proceedings without considering the preliminary objections filed on 27.12.2018. As such, the re-assessment order impugned is not valid in the eye of law for passing the same sans disposing of the preliminary objections.

3.

Learned counsel for the revenue justifying the impugned order submitted that re-assessment order was passed on 24.12.2018 prior to the preliminary objections submitted by the petitioner on 27.12.2018. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment under Section 148 of the Act was made available to the petitioner on three times. Despite the same, no objections were filed. It is after passing of the re-assessment order on 24.12.2018,

- 4 - preliminary objections has been filed by the assessee. Hence, the order impugned cannot be faulted with.

4.

It is almost the same set of facts in W.P.No.2456/2019 relating to the assessment year 2013-14 of the very same assessee’s case, wherein this Court has quashed the re-assessment order as well as the demand notice, restoring the proceedings to the file of the respondent – Assessing Officer to consider the preliminary objections filed by the petitioner to the reasons recorded by the respondent and conclude the re-assessment proceedings in accordance with law in an expedite manner. Hence, this writ petition deserves to be disposed of in similar terms.

5.

Accordingly, the impugned re-assessment order at Annexure-F and the demand notice at Annexure-G relating to the Assessment Year 2011-12 are quashed. The proceedings are restored to the file of the respondent-Assessing Officer to redo the

- 5 - assessment considering the preliminary objections filed by the petitioner to the reasons recorded by the respondent as per Annexure-E to the writ petition dated 27.12.2018 and conclude the assessment thereafter in accordance with law in an expedite manner preferably within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, writ petition stands disposed of.

Sd/- JUDGE

PMR

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →