SHRI MOHAMMED SAIT vs. THE NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE

PDF · subscribers
WP/14192/2024HC KarnatakaKAHC01026396202422 June 2024Bench: S SUNIL DUTT YADAV4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Karnataka held that the short period of two days provided for filing a reply to the show cause notice constituted a violation of the principles of natural justice and caused prejudice to the petitioner. The Court found that the facts regarding the issuance date of the notice and the due date for the reply were borne from the records. Consequently, on this sole ground, the impugned assessment order, computation sheet, demand notice, and the notice under Section 271AAC(1) were set aside. The matter was relegated to the stage of the reply to the show cause notice. The petitioner was granted liberty to upload their reply, and all contentions were kept open. The Court did not decide on any other grounds or substantive issues related to the assessment.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shri Mohammed Sait, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging an order dated 21.03.2024, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2022-23. The petitioner also challenged the computation sheet, demand notice, and a notice under Section 271AAC(1) of the Act. The core of the petitioner's grievance was that the assessment order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Specifically, a show cause notice dated 16.03.2024, required a reply by 18.03.2024, which the petitioner contended was an unreasonably short period, preventing them from effectively presenting their case.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2022-23, is liable to be quashed on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice due to insufficient time provided for filing a reply to the show cause notice. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the show cause notice dated 16.03.2024, mandating a reply by 18.03.2024, provided an unreasonably short period of two days. This violation of natural justice prejudiced the petitioner, preventing them from effectively submitting a reply and putting forth their case, leading to an order passed in the absence of a proper response. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144B,Section 271AAC(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: SHRI MOHAMMED SAIT,

- 1 -

NC: 2024:KHC:22948 WP No. 14192 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 14192 OF 2024 (T-IT) BETWEEN: SHRI MOHAMMED SAIT, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 132, 4TH CROSS, C LAYOUT, BANNI MANTAPA C LAYOUT MYSURU-570015 PAN AOOPS9154H. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVIKUMAR N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI LOCHANA S BABU, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE REP BY ADDITIONAL / JOINT / DEPUTY / ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX / INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ROOM NO.401, 2ND FLOOR, E RAMP, JAWARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, NEW DELHI-110003. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1(1), MYSURU, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, 22/16, GOVT HOUSE ROAD NAZARBAD, MYSURU-570010. .. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI THIRUMALESH, ADVOCATE ) Digitally signed by VIDYA G R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

NC: 2024:KHC:22948 WP No. 14192 of 2024 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD. 21.03.2024, PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 144B OF THE ACT OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2022-23 BY THE R-1 BEARING DIN AND NOTICE NO. ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2023- 24/1063104554(1) HEREIN MARKED AS ANNX-A AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER The petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 21.03.2024, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short `the Act') at Annexure-`A', computation sheet at Annexure-`A-1', demand notice at Annexure-`A-2' and notice under Section 271AAC(1) of the Act at Annexure-`A-3'.

2.

It is the case of the petitioner that the impugned Assessment Order is passed in violation of principles of natural justice. In so far as the show cause notice issued at Annexure-`G', dated 16.03.2024 is concerned, it had mandated filing of reply on or before 18.03.2024. It is submitted that such short time given for reply has resulted

- 3 -

NC: 2024:KHC:22948 WP No. 14192 of 2024 in violation of principles of natural justice and prejudice has been caused as the petitioner was not in a position to submit the reply. It is also submitted that, in the light of failure to upload the reply as time limit has lapsed, the petitioner was unable to put forth his case effectively resulting in passing of an order in the absence of reply to the contentions raised in the show cause notice dated 16.03.2024.

3.

These facts of date of issuance of notice and reply to be furnished on 18.03.2024 are borne from records. The contention of prejudice being caused by short time of two days given for making out reply requires consideration.

4.

Accordingly, on such sole ground, the order at Annexure-`A', computation sheet at Annexure-`A-1', demand notice at Annexure-`A-2' and notice at Annexure-`A-3', are set aside and the matter is relegated to the stage of reply to the show cause notice at Annexure-`G'. The petitioner is at liberty to upload the

- 4 -

NC: 2024:KHC:22948 WP No. 14192 of 2024 order of this Court by way of reply to the recovery notice/show cause notice. All contentions are kept open.

The Writ Petition is disposed off accordingly. Sd/- JUDGE bk/ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

More judgments on Section 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →