SRI BHARANYA KRISHAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP/3390/2020HC KarnatakaKAHC01005987202008 December 2022Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the material on record indicated that despite the petitioner filing several replies and documents to the notices issued by the respondent, the respondent did not consider the petitioner's request for a personal hearing. This failure to afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, before passing the impugned assessment order and consequential demand notice, was found to be in violation of the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Court decided that the impugned assessment order and demand notice deserved to be set aside. The Court allowed the petition, quashed the assessment order and demand notice, and remitted the matter back to the concerned respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. Liberty was granted to the petitioner to produce additional pleadings and documents, and the respondent was directed to provide an opportunity of personal hearing.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sri. Bharanya Krishna Venkatramana Prasad, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging an assessment order and a demand notice issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & TPS, Shimoga. The assessment order was passed for Assessment Year 2017-18 under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated December 23, 2019. The petitioner contended that despite filing several replies and documents to various notices issued by the respondent, his request for a personal hearing was not considered. The respondent argued that the petition lacked merit. The High Court noted that the petitioner's request for a personal hearing was not considered, violating principles of natural justice.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order passed for Assessment Year 2017-18 under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential demand notice dated 23.12.2019, are liable to be quashed on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice, specifically the denial of a personal hearing to the petitioner, as argued by the petitioner. Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the respondent issued multiple notices (dated 10.08.2018, 11.05.2019, 04.07.2019, 31.08.2019, 10.09.2019, 11.11.2019, and 06.12.2019) to which he filed replies and documents. He requested a personal hearing, but this request was not considered by the respondent, who then proceeded to pass the assessment order and demand notice without providing a sufficient opportunity. The petitioner relied on the principle of natural justice. Revenue's Contentions: The respondent 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),Section 156

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

WRIT PETITION No.3390 OF 2020 (T – IT)

BETWEEN:

SRI. BHARANYA KRISHNA VENKATRAMANA PRASAD, S/O LATE SRI.B.M.KRISHNA BHAT, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, NO. 1, KOPPA, HOLEHONNUR, BHADRAVATHI – 577 227, REPRESENTED BY SRI. Y.N.S. PRASHANTH, AGE 42 YEARS, S/O. SRI. Y.S.NARAYANA BHAT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.M.THIRUMALESH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 & TPS, NO.75, 100 FEET ROAD, GOPALA GOWDA EXTENSION, SHIMOGA – 577 201.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE)

***** THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2017-18 U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT DATED 23.12.2019 BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 AND TPS, SHIMOGA ANNEXURE – L AND ETC.,

THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

2 ORDER In this petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs: a. Issue a writ of certiorari or a declaration in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the assessment order passed for the Asst. Year 2017-18 under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act dated 23.12.2019 by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & TPS, Shimoga, in ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2019-20/1022960732(1)- ANNEXURE-L; b. Issue a writ of certiorari or a declaration in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the demand notice issued for the Asst. Year 2017-18 under Section 156 of the Income Tax Act dated 23.12.2019 by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & TPS Shimoga, in ITBA/AST/S/156/2019- 20/1022960787(1) – ANNEXURE-M; c. And grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.

3.

In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the

3 material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent issued notices dated 10.08.2018, 11.05.2019, 04.07.2019, 31.08.2019, 10.09.2019, 11.11.2019 and 06.12.2019 followed by several other notices, to which the petitioner had filed replies dated 15.10.2019, 23.11.2019, 28.11.2019, 15.12.2016 and 16.12.2019 along with documents, requesting an opportunity of personal hearing and the said request of the petitioner was not considered by the respondents and the respondents proceeded to pass the impugned assessment order and demand notice, without providing sufficient or reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, who is before this Court by way of the present petition.

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.

The material on record discloses that the despite petitioner filing several replies along with documents to the notices issued by the respondents, the

4 respondents did not consider the request of the petitioner and had not afforded any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and proceeded to pass the impugned assessment order and the consequential demand notice, which is in violation of principles of natural justice and the same deserve to be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the concerned respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.

6.

In the result, I pass the following: ORDER

(i) The petition is hereby allowed.

(ii) The impugned assessment order dated 23.12.2019 vide Annexure-L and the demand notice dated 23.12.2019 vide Annexure-M are hereby quashed.

(iii) The matter is remitted back to the concerned respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.

(iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to produce additional pleadings, documents etc., before the concerned respondent, who shall

5 provide the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing and proceed further in the matter.

Sd/- JUDGE

KTY/BMC

More judgments on Section 156

All 694 judgments and leading authorities on Section 156 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →