BYRANAYAKANAHALLY CHANNABASAPPA PRABHUSWAMY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP/27561/2023HC KarnatakaKAHC01063308202313 February 2024Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR5 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the petition. It found that the petitioner had indeed submitted relevant documents, as evidenced by Annexures B2 to B4. The Court noted that paragraph 6 of the impugned order dated March 15, 2023, incorrectly stated that the petitioner had not furnished supporting documents to relate the cash received in his bank account to the sale of agricultural produce. This factual error, contrary to the material on record, necessitated judicial intervention. Consequently, the impugned order dated March 15, 2023, and the notice dated March 31, 2023 (Annexures C and D), were quashed. The matter was remitted back to the stage of issuing notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondents were directed to consider the petitioner's reply and documents, provide a reasonable opportunity for hearing, and proceed in accordance with law. Liberty was granted to the petitioner to produce additional documents.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Byranayakanahally Channabasappa Prabhuswamy, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging notices issued under Section 148A(b) and Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2016-17. The petitioner's grievance was that despite submitting a detailed reply with supporting documents to the notice under Section 148A(b) dated January 27, 2023, the Assessing Officer (Respondent No. 1) erroneously concluded that no documents were produced. This led to the issuance of further notices and an impugned order. The petitioner sought to quash these notices and orders, requesting the matter be remitted for fresh consideration.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice under clause (b) of Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated January 27, 2023, for AY 2016-17, issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Tiptur, is liable to be quashed. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that he had submitted all relevant documents in response to the notice, but the Assessing Officer incorrectly recorded that no documents were furnished. This factual inaccuracy warrants interference. Revenue's Contention: The respondents contended that the petition lacked merit and was liable to be dismissed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

NC: 2024:KHC:6197 WP No. 27561 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 27561 OF 2023 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

BYRANAYAKANAHALLY CHANNABASAPPA PRABHUSWAMY, S/O LATE SRI. CHANBASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 246, SOWMYASHREE NILAYA, 3RD CROSS, VINAYAKA NAGAR, TIPTUR, TUMKUR - 572 201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHREEHARI KUTSA, ADVOCATE) AND:

1.

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, TIPTUR, THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, JAYADEVA COMPLEX, TIPTUR, TUMKUR - 572 201.

2.

PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KARNATAKA AND GOA, THE SPECIFIED AUTHORITY UNDER THE SECTION 151 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

Digitally signed by Vandana S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

NC: 2024:KHC:6197 WP No. 27561 of 2023

3.

NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE NOW KNOWN AS NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, REP. BY PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (NEAC), ROOM NO. 401, 2ND FLOOR, E-RAMP, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, DELHI - 110 003. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. DILIP, ADVOCATE)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE UNDER CLAUSE (b) OF SECTION 148A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 DATED 27.01.2023 FOR THE A.Y. 2016-17 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 BEARING DIN VIZ., ITBA/AST/F/148A(SCN)/2022-23/1049166795(1) AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

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

In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

"a. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the notice under clause (b) of section 148A of the Income Tax Act 1961 dated 27/01/2023 for the A.Y. 2016-17 issued by the Respondent No.1 bearing DIN viz., ITBA/AST/F/148A(SCN)2022-23/1049166795(1) which is enclosed as Annexure-A.

b. Invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court seeking quashing of the notice under clause (d) of Section 148A of the Income Tax Act 1961 dated 15/03/2023

- 3 -

NC: 2024:KHC:6197 WP No. 27561 of 2023

for the A.Y. 2016-17 issued by the Respondent No.1 bearing DIN viz., ITBA/AST/F/148A/2022-23/1050768558(1) which is enclosed as Annexure-C.

c. Invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court seeking quashing of the notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961 dated 31/03/2023 for the A.Y. 2016-17 issued by the Respondent No.1 bearing DIN viz., ITBA/AST/148_1/2022-23/1051724198(1) which is enclosed as Annexure-D.

d. And pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity."

2.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondents issued notice under clause (b) of Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the IT Act’ for short] on 27.01.2023 to the petitioner to submit a detailed response/reply on or before 06.02.2023. 4. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though the petitioner had submitted his reply along with all relevant documents in support of his response, respondent No.1 has proceeded to the erroneous conclusion that no documents have been produced by the petitioner along with his reply and consequently, the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 deserves to be set aside and the

- 4 -

NC: 2024:KHC:6197 WP No. 27561 of 2023

matter remitted back to respondent No.1 for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. 5. 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. 6. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, along with his response/reply, the petitioner had submitted all relevant documents, as could be seen from Annexures - B2 to B4. However, at paragraph-6 of the impugned order dated 15.03.2023, Respondent No.1 has incorrectly stated that the petitioner has not furnished any supporting documents which can relate that the cash received, as deposited in his bank account (table-1), had come from the sale of agriculture produce. The said finding recorded by the respondent is factually incorrect and contrary to the material on record warranting interference by this Court in the present petition.

7.

In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby allowed.

- 5 -

NC: 2024:KHC:6197 WP No. 27561 of 2023

(ii) The impugned order dated 15.03.2023 and notice dated 31.03.2023 vide Annexures- C & D respectively are hereby quashed. (iii) The matter is remitted back to the stage of issuance of notice under Clause (b) of Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with direction to the respondents to consider the response/reply and documents produced by the petitioner to proceed further in accordance with law after providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and hearing him in accordance with law. (iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to produce additional pleadings, documents before the respondents which shall be considered by them in accordance with law.

Sd/- JUDGE

KTY List No.: 2 Sl No.: 18 CT:SNN

More judgments on Section 148A

All 3,543 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →