MRS.LALITHA W/O GIRISH HATTARKI, vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

PDF · subscribers
WP/146250/2020HC KarnatakaKAHC02002088202026 September 2024Author: JYOTI MULIMANI4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed that the proceedings initiated under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, shall be kept in abeyance until a speaking order is passed on the petitioner's representation. The department was instructed not to precipitate the matter concerning the continuation of these proceedings. The petitioner was also granted liberty to approach the appropriate forum to question the impugned notice on any other legal grounds. The Court disposed of the writ petition based on these directions, referencing a previous order that allowed the petitioner to file a fresh representation. No specific finding was made on the validity of the Section 153C notice itself, as the matter was adjourned pending the representation's consideration.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mrs. Lalitha, challenged a notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner contended that she was unable to comply with the notice due to the non-availability of relevant documents to file her returns. The High Court noted that a previous writ petition (W.P.No.110664/2019) filed by the petitioner had been disposed of with a direction for the petitioner to file a fresh representation with documents within four weeks, which the department was to consider within eight weeks. The department was also restrained from precipitating the matter until the representation was considered.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is valid and enforceable against the petitioner, considering her inability to comply due to non-availability of documents? (Mixed question of law and fact) Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that she could not comply with the Section 153C notice because she lacked the necessary documents to file her returns. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record specific contentions from the revenue regarding the validity of the notice or the petitioner's inability to comply. The revenue was represented, and arguments were heard, but their specific submissions on this issue are not detailed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 146250 OF 2020 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

MRS. LALITHA W/O GIRISH HATTARKI, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: PLOT NO.10898, 1ST MAIN, 5TH CROSS, BEHIND SAIT PETROL PUMP, SADASHIV NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANGRAM.S.KULKARNI., ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR, SURESH COMPLEX, OPP. FIRE STATION, SANJAY GANDHI NAGAR, BALLARI-583 104. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. Y.V.RAVIRAJ., ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR HEARING- INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

ORAL ORDER Sri.Sangram S.Kulkarni., counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Y.V.Raviraj., counsel for the respondent have appeared in person. 2. The petitioner has questioned the Notice issued by the Income Tax Department under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide Annexure-H. 3. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the contentions and perused the Writ papers with care. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that she is unable to comply with the 153C notice due to non-availability of the relevant documents to file the returns. 5. Suffice it to note that this Court has disposed of the Writ Petition (W.P.No.110664/2019) and a Mandamus is ordered as under: “Liberty is given to the petitioner to file a fresh representation along with documents within four weeks from the receipt of the certified copy of this order. If such a representation is submitted, the

department/ jurisdictional officer shall consider Annexure-E and also the fresh representation that would be submitted by the petitioner in accordance with the law, within eight weeks thereafter. It is made clear that the department shall not precipitate the matter till the consideration of the letter/ representation of the petitioner.” Therefore, this Court considers it proper to direct the department not to precipitate the matter with regard to continuation of proceedings initiated under Section 153C of the Act till the consideration of the petitioner’s representation. It is made clear that the proceedings initiated under Section 153C of the Act shall be kept in abeyance till a speaking order is passed on the representation submitted by the petitioner. Liberty is also accorded for the petitioner to approach appropriate forum to question the impugned notice on any other legal grounds. 6. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

Because of disposal of Writ Petition, pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of.

Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE TKN LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 11.5

More judgments on Section 153C

All 9,619 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →