SRI.C.T. RAGHU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP/2606/2024HC KarnatakaKAHC01003223202403 April 2024Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR4 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned assessment order dated 27.12.2023 for AY 2012-13. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration afresh. The Court noted that the Assessing Officer had rejected the Tax Audit Report because the schedules and annexures were not signed by the partner of the CA firm and only contained the assessee's signature. The Assessing Officer also concluded that the petitioner's bank statement and other documents were not produced. However, considering the petitioner's submission that they would produce additional documents to substantiate their claim and establish the genuineness of the Tax Audit Report if given another opportunity, the Court found it just and appropriate to set aside the order and grant liberty to the petitioner to produce additional pleadings, documents, and judgments, which the respondent shall consider before proceeding in accordance with law.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sri C.T. Raghu, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 27.12.2023 for Assessment Year 2012-13, passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(3)(1), Bengaluru. This order rejected the petitioner's claim. Previously, the petitioner had challenged an order in ITA No. 787/2018 before the High Court, which was allowed on 28.11.2022. The High Court set aside the earlier order and remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer, directing the officer to show that the alleged amount was received prior to 01.04.2011. The petitioner contends that despite providing a Tax Audit Report and other documents, the Assessing Officer again rejected the claim.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned assessment order for AY 2012-13 dated 27.12.2023, passed by the respondent-Income Tax Officer, is liable to be quashed. (Question of law and fact) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that the Assessing Officer has once again rejected the claim despite the petitioner furnishing a Tax Audit Report and other supporting documents. The petitioner further submits that if granted one more opportunity, they would produce additional documents to substantiate their claim and establish the genuineness of the Tax Audit Report. Revenue's Contention: The respondent-Income Tax Officer contends that since the petitioner did not substantiate their claim even after the previous remand, the respondent had no option but to pass the impugned order, which does not warrant interference.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

NC: 2024:KHC:13724 WP No. 2606 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 2606 OF 2024 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

SRI.C.T. RAGHU S/O C V RAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, NO.42/2, 8TH MAIN, 5TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN, RAJMAHAL VILAS EXTENSION, BENGALURU 560 080. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. SHEETAL BORKAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(3)(1), BENGALURU 560 095. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.M.DILIP, ADVOCATE)

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 DATED 27/12/2023, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT, AS ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.,

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

Digitally signed by VANDANA S Location: High Court of Karnataka

- 2 -

NC: 2024:KHC:13724 WP No. 2606 of 2024

ORDER

In this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of impugned order passed by the respondent at Annexure-B for A.Y.2012-13 dated 27.12.2023 whereby the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent.

A perusal of the material on record would indicate that in the first instance, the Assessing Officer having passed the order against the petitioner, the petitioner challenged the same before this Court in ITA No.787/2018, which was allowed by this court vide order dated 28.11.2022 by setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter back to the Assessing Officer to produce the material to show that the alleged amount was received prior to 01.04.2011. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though he placed the certificate of Tax Audit Report, substantiating his claim and available documents, the Assessing Officer has once again rejected the claim of the petitioner by passing the impugned order which is assailed in the present petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that in the light of the findings recorded by the Assessing Officer that sufficient material was not produced by the petitioner, if one more

- 3 -

NC: 2024:KHC:13724 WP No. 2606 of 2024

opportunity is provided by setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter back for reconsideration afresh, the petitioner would produce additional documents to substantiate his claim.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits since petitioner did not substantiate his claim even after remand, the respondent was left with no option but to pass the impugned order, which does not warrant interference in the present petition.

A perusal of the material on record would indicate that the respondent-Assessing Officer has refused to accept the Tax Audit Report by Chartered Accountant on the ground that the schedule and Annexures were not signed by the partner of the CA Firm and contained only signature of the assessee. The Assessing Officer has also come to the conclusion that the Bank Statement of the petitioner and other documents had not been produced and consequently, proceeded to reject the claim of the petitioner. However, in the light of the specific contention urged on the part of the petitioner that if one more opportunity is provided, the petitioner would produce additional documents to substantiate his claim and also establish genuineness and authenticity of Tax Audit Report by making necessary submissions in this regard

- 4 -

NC: 2024:KHC:13724 WP No. 2606 of 2024

before the Assessing Officer, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.

In the result, I pass the following: ORDER

(i) Petition is hereby allowed;

(ii) Impugned order dated 27.12.2023 for A.Y.2012-13 at Annexure-B passed by the respondent is hereby set-aside;

(iii) The matter is remitted back to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law; and

(iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to produce additional pleadings, documents, judgments, etc., which shall be considered by the respondent, who shall proceed further in accordance with law.

SD/- JUDGE

AV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →