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

PDF · subscribers
WP/146248/2020HC KarnatakaKAHC02002087202026 September 2024Author: JYOTI MULIMANI4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that it was proper to direct the department not to precipitate the matter concerning the continuation of proceedings initiated under Section 153C of the Act until the petitioner's representation was considered. The Court ordered that the proceedings initiated under Section 153C be kept in abeyance until a speaking order was passed on the petitioner's submitted representation. The petitioner was also granted liberty to approach the appropriate forum to question the impugned notice on any other legal grounds. The writ petition was disposed of in light of these directions. The operative direction was to keep the Section 153C proceedings in abeyance and to allow the petitioner to file a representation.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mrs. Lalitha, filed a writ petition challenging 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 along with documents within four weeks. The department was directed to consider this representation and a previous document (Annexure-E) within eight weeks thereafter, and was restrained from precipitating the matter until such consideration. The current writ petition was filed seeking similar relief regarding the Section 153C notice.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the proceedings initiated under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, should be kept in abeyance pending the consideration of the petitioner's representation by the department? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 153C). Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that she was unable to comply with the Section 153C notice due to the non-availability of relevant documents for filing her returns. She relied on the previous order of the Court in W.P.No.110664/2019, which directed the department to consider her representation before precipitating the matter. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record specific contentions from the revenue regarding the issues raised by the petitioner. However, the revenue was represented by counsel.

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. 146248 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

More judgments on Section 153C

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →