SRI NITHIN NAGARAJ REDDY vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT

PDF · subscribers
WP/17026/2024HC KarnatakaKAHC01033949202412 July 2024Bench: S SUNIL DUTT YADAV5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the assessment order dated March 12, 2024 (Annexure-K). The Court reasoned that the assessment order proceeded on the premise that the petitioner failed to furnish documentary evidence. Given the petitioner's request for an adjournment (Annexure-J5) made on February 20, 2024, seeking time to obtain bank statements for a period exceeding ten years due to the merger of Andhra Bank with Union Bank of India, it was deemed appropriate to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to furnish the necessary details. The matter was remitted back for fresh consideration by the Assessing Officer. The operative direction was to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter for fresh adjudication, with the petitioner being directed to furnish the necessary details upon appearing before the Assessing Officer. All other contentions were expressly left open.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sri. Nithin Nagaraj Reddy, filed a writ petition challenging the best judgment assessment order dated March 12, 2024, passed by the Assessment Unit, Faceless Assessment Centre, for Assessment Year 2022-23. The petitioner contended that during assessment proceedings, a show-cause notice was issued on February 21, 2024, with a compliance deadline of February 28, 2024. Although some information was provided, the petitioner requested an additional two weeks to furnish details regarding a bank account from Andhra Bank (now merged with Union Bank of India) and sought account statements for a period exceeding ten years. This request for adjournment was made on February 20, 2024. The assessment order was passed on March 12, 2024, without considering the petitioner's request for time.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order dated March 12, 2024, passed for AY 2022-23, is liable to be quashed on the grounds that the Assessing Officer failed to consider the petitioner's request for adjournment to furnish necessary details regarding bank accounts, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and the procedure under Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed without considering their reasonable request for an adjournment to obtain crucial bank account details, which were difficult to procure due to the bank's merger and the age of the records. This failure to grant time prejudiced their ability to present complete documentation. 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 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

NC: 2024:KHC:26998 WP No. 17026 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JULY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 17026 OF 2024 (T-RES) BETWEEN:

SRI. NITHIN NAGARAJ REDDY, S/O SRI. T.C. NAGARAJA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT NO. 304, VISHNU RESIDENCY, THUBARAHALLI, VARTHUR MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE 560 037 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NAGHARISH G.S., ADVOCATE) AND:

1.

ASSESSMENT UNIT, FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI 110 001 REP. BY ASSESSING OFFICER

2.

NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NO. 412-413, 1ST FLOOR, OPP. METRO PILLAR NO. 793, DWARKA MOR, NEW DELHI 110 059, REP. BY ASSESSING OFFICER

Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

NC: 2024:KHC:26998 WP No. 17026 of 2024

3.

JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -6(3)(4) BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE 560 095

4.

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE 560 095 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SUSHAL TIWARI, ADVOCATE) ……..

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 12.03.2024 BEARING NO. ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2023-24/1062452968(1) ANNEXURE-K PASSED FOR THE AY 2022-23 PASSED BY THE R-1 AND REMAND THE MATTER BACK FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROCEDURE U.S 144B OF THE IT ACT AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

- 3 -

NC: 2024:KHC:26998 WP No. 17026 of 2024

ORDER

1.

The petitioner has sought for setting aside the assessment order dated 12.03.2024 at Annexure-K passed for the Assessment Year 2022-23 and to remand the matter back for fresh adjudication in accordance with procedure under 144-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The case of the petitioner is that during the course of the assessment proceedings, show-cause notice came to be issued on 21.02.2024 directing compliance by 28.02.2024. It is submitted that though some information was given, request was made in terms of Annexure-J5 seeking for an additional two weeks time to complete details regarding the details of the bank account related to an account from Andhra Bank, which subsequently was merged with Union Bank of India. Further, request was made to the Bank to provide the account statement for the relevant financial year which pertains to a time period beyond ten years and procurement of statements required

- 4 -

NC: 2024:KHC:26998 WP No. 17026 of 2024

additional time. However, it is submitted that the assessment proceedings itself were concluded as on 12.03.2024. It is submitted that the request for adjournment has not been considered despite the reasonableness of such request. Taking note that the assessment order is passed on 12.03.2024 and the request at Annexure-J5 having been made on 20th February 2024, further time as requested ought to have been granted in light of the assertion made regarding merger of Andhra Bank with Union Bank of India. 3. The assessment order clearly proceeds on the premise that the petitioner has failed to furnish documentary evidence. In the light of the same, it would meet the ends of justice in affording an opportunity to the petitioner to furnish necessary details as made out in their request at Anenxure-J5. 4. Accordingly, Writ Petition is allowed and order at Annexure-K is set aside. Matter is remitted for fresh consideration. Petitioner to make out the necessary details upon appearing before the Assessing Officer.

- 5 -

NC: 2024:KHC:26998 WP No. 17026 of 2024

All other contentions are kept open. The matter is relegated as observed above.

Sd/- JUDGE

BNV ct-snn/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16

More judgments on Section 144B

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →