ONE WORLD VENTURES vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP/9257/2022HC KarnatakaKAHC01020892202220 August 2024Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR7 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Karnataka, applying the doctrine of parity, allowed the writ petition. The court referred to its previous order in W.P.No.9251/2022, which pertained to the same petitioner for Assessment Year 2014-15. In that prior case, the court had set aside the assessment order dated March 29, 2022, and remitted the matter back to the concerned respondents for reconsideration. The court noted that the impugned order in the present petition, also dated March 29, 2022, was for the same petitioner and for Assessment Year 2013-14. Therefore, by applying the principle of parity, the court deemed it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned assessment order at Annexure-Q and remit the matter back to the respondents for reconsideration in terms of the order passed in W.P.No.9251/2022. The operative part of the order stated that the petition was allowed and disposed of in terms of the order dated November 9, 2023, passed in W.P.No.9251/2022, and the impugned Assessment order at Annexure-Q dated March 29, 2022, was set aside.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, One World Ventures, filed a writ petition challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated March 31, 2021, and an assessment order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act, dated March 29, 2022, for Assessment Year 2013-14. The petitioner argued that a co-ordinate bench of the same court had previously set aside a similar assessment order for Assessment Year 2014-15, also pertaining to the same petitioner, and remitted the matter back for reconsideration. The petitioner contended that by parity of reasoning, a similar order should be passed in the present case. The respondents, represented by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and others, reiterated their contentions from their statement of objections and argued that the petition lacked merit and should be dismissed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated March 31, 2021, and the assessment order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act, dated March 29, 2022, for Assessment Year 2013-14, are liable to be quashed and set aside? Assessee's Contentions: - The petitioner relied on a previous order of the Karnataka High Court in W.P.No.9251/2022, dated November 9, 2023, concerning the same petitioner for Assessment Year 2014-15. In that case, the court had set aside the assessment order and remitted the matter back for reconsideration. - The petitioner argued that by virtue of parity, a similar order should be passed in the present case for Assessment Year 2013-14. Revenue's Contentions: - The respondents reiterated the contentions urged in their statement of objections. - They submitted 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 148,Section 147,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

NC: 2024:KHC:33450 WP No. 9257 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.9257 OF 2022 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

ONE WORLD VENTURES, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.809, KAMADHENU, 10TH MAIN, 5TH CROSS, 4TH BLOCK, KORMANGALA, BANGALORE – 560 034. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MR. KUSH SHAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BALRAM R. RAO, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BANGALORE BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560 095.

2.

ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI, 2ND FLOOR, E-RAMP, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, DELHI-110 003.

3.

PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSINER OF INCOME TAX NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, INCOMET TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI, 2ND FLOOR, E-RAMP, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, DELHI-110 003. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M DILIP., ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by LEELAVATHI S R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

NC: 2024:KHC:33450 WP No. 9257 of 2022

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS OF THE PETITIONER’S CASE AND AFTER EXAMINING THE LEGALITY AND VALIDITY THEREOF BE PLEASED TO QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT DTD. 31.03.2021 (ANNX-B) ISSUED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 AND IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 147 R.W.S 144B OF THE ACT DTD. 29.03.2022 (ANNX-Q) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 AND ETC.,

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL ORDER

In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “i) Issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records of the Petitioner’s case and after examining the legality and validity thereof be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned notice issued under section 148 of the Act dated 31st March 2021in DIN & Notice No: ITBA / AST / S / 148 / 2020-21 / 1032083530(1) (ANNEXURE-B) issued for assessment year 2013-14 and impugned order passed under section 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 29th March 2022 in DIN No:ITBA/AST/S/147/2021-22/1042133535(1) (ANNEXURE -Q) for assessment year 2013-14;and

ii) A writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ordering and directing the Respondents by themselves, their

- 3 -

NC: 2024:KHC:33450 WP No. 9257 of 2022

subordinate, servants and agents to withdraw and cancel the impugned notice issued under section 148 of the Act dated 31st March 2021 in DIN & Notice No:ITBA/AST/S/148/2020-21/1032083530(1) (ANNEXURE -B) issued for assessment year 2013-14 and impugned order passed under section 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 29th March 2022 in DIN No: ITBA/AST/M/148/2021- 22/1042133535 (ANNEXURE - Q) for assessment year 2013-14, and

iii) A Writ of Prohibition or a Writ in the nature of Prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prohibiting and restraining the Respondents by themselves, their subordinate, servants and agents from taking any action in furtherance or consequent to impugned order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 29th March 2022 in DIN No: ITBA/AST/S/147/2021-22/1042133535 (ANNEXURE-Q) for assessment year 2013-14, and

iv) Issue such other order, writ or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit; and

v) Direct the Respondents to pay the costs of this Writ Petition.”

2.

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

- 4 -

NC: 2024:KHC:33450 WP No. 9257 of 2022

3.

In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in relation to the very same petitioner in W.P.No.9251/2022 dated 09.11.2023 in respect of Assessment year 2014-15 in order to contend that this Court set aside the impugned Assessment order dated 29.03.2022 and remitted the matter back to the concerned respondents for reconsideration afresh, in accordance with law.

4.

It is submitted that while the said order dated 09.11.2023 passed in W.P.No.9251/2022 pertains to the Assessment year 2014-15, the order impugned in the present petition at Annexure – Q dated 29.03.2022 pertains to the Assessment year 2013-14 in respect of the very same petitioner assessee and as such, by virtue of parity, similar order may be passed in the present petition also.

5.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would reiterate the contentions urged in the statement of objections and submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

- 5 -

NC: 2024:KHC:33450 WP No. 9257 of 2022

6.

In W.P.No.9251/2022 filed by the very same petitioner in relation to the Assessment year 2014-15, this Court set aside the impugned Assessment order dated 29.03.2022 and remitted the matter back to the concerned respondents for reconsideration afresh by holding as under:

“The petitioner has impugned the notice dated 31.03.2021 [Annexure-B] issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act [for short, ‘IT Act’] and the Assessment Order dated 29.03.2022 [Annexure-P] under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the IT Act. These impugned notice and order relate to the assessment year 2014-15. The petitioner’s principal grievance is as against the lack of reasonable opportunity. Sri Balram R Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri M Dilip, the learned standing counsel for the respondents, are heard for disposal of the petition in the light of this grievance.

It would suffice for this Court for the purposes of the present petition to record that with the issuance of intimation of the proposed reassessment, the petitioner has asked for reasons, and with such reasons being given, the petitioner has filed the statement of objections. The second respondent, by the order dated 23.03.2022, has disposed of the objections and this is followed by the notice dated 24.03.2022 under Section 148 of the IT Act. The petitioner is given time until 23:59 hours of 26.03.2022 to file response and the assessment order is issued on the ground that there is no response.

- 6 -

NC: 2024:KHC:33450 WP No. 9257 of 2022

It is also recorded in the assessment order that the petitioner was allowed thirty [30] days from the date of service of notice to file the statement of objections, and indisputably this is factually incorrect. This circumstance demonstrates lack of due opportunity and therefore there must be interference to the limited extent of quashing the impugned order dated 29.03.2022 [Annexure-P] and restoring the proceedings. In the light of the afore, the following: ORDER [a] The petition is allowed in part, and the impugned order dated 29.03.2022 [Annexure-P] is quashed. The petitioner is reserved liberty to file statement of objections within a period of four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

[b] It is needless to observe that if there is any delay in enabling the petitioner to file such objections on e-portal, there shall be corresponding extension of time. Further, it must be observed that as interference is on the limited ground, the petitioner will not be able to raise the ground of limitation.”

7.

It is an undisputed fact borne out from the material on record that while the aforesaid order in W.P.No.9251/2022 pertains to the Assessment year 2014-15 and the assessment order was passed on 29.03.2022, the order impugned in the present petition is also in respect of the very same petitioner – assessee based on the very same order dated 29.03.2022. Under these

- 7 -

NC: 2024:KHC:33450 WP No. 9257 of 2022

circumstances, by applying the doctrine of parity, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order at Annexure – Q and remit the matter back to the concerned respondents for reconsideration in terms of the order dated 09.11.2023 passed in W.P.No.9251/2022.

8.

In the result, I pass the following: ORDER

(i) The petition is hereby allowed and disposed of in terms of order dated 09.11.2023 passed in W.P.No.9251/2022.

(ii) The impugned Assessment order at Annexure – Q dated 29.03.2022 passed by the respondent is hereby set aside.

Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

SV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →