MSOURCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP/22370/2024HC KarnatakaKAHC01047912202419 September 2024Author: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR4 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court found that the material on record indicated that Respondent No. 2 (NFAC) had proceeded to pass the impugned order without providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner. This was held to be a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the impugned appellate order dated 22.04.2024 passed by Respondent No. 2 was set aside. The matter was remitted back to Respondent No. 2 for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. Liberty was granted to the petitioner to submit all necessary replies, responses, pleadings, and documents, and Respondent No. 2 was directed to consider them and provide a sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner before proceeding further.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Msource (India) Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging an appellate order dated 22.04.2024 passed by the National Faceless Appeals Centre (NFAC), Respondent No. 2. This order was passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2016-17. The petitioner was aggrieved by an assessment order dated 18.12.2018 and had filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Subsequently, the appeals were transferred to the NFAC. The petitioner contended that the NFAC passed the impugned order without providing sufficient opportunity, violating principles of natural justice.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appellate order dated 22.04.2024 passed by the Respondent No. 2 under Section 250 of the IT Act for AY 2016-17 is liable to be quashed on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice? Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the impugned appellate order was passed by Respondent No. 2 without providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to present their case. This lack of opportunity, according to the petitioner, clearly violates the fundamental principles of natural justice, warranting interference by the High Court. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 22370 OF 2024 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

MSOURCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED BAGMANE WORLD TECHNOLOGY CENTRE DODANEKUNDI OUTER RING ROAD, DODDANEKKUNDI B O BENGALURU NORTH BENGALURU - 560037 PAN NO AACCM 2097G A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 REP BY ITS MR ARJIT GANGULY S/O AMITAVA GANGULY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS OCCUPATION SR VICE PRESIDENT AND GROUND HEAD TAXATION RESIDING AT BAGMANE TECHNOLOGY PARK LAUREL BUILDING C V RAMNA NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 003. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PAI DHUNGAT ANKUR DEEPAK.,ADVOCATE) AND:

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 4 (1) (1) BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD,

6TH BLOCK NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE

KORAMANGALA

BENGALURU – 560 095.

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NATIONAL FACELESS APPEALS CENTRE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT MINISTRY OF FINANCE,

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI - 110001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SUSHAL TIWARI, ADVOCATE)

THIS W.P IS FILED ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH TEH FOLLOWING ANNEXURE-D -IMPUGNED APPELLATE ORDER DTD 22.04.2024 PASSED BY THE R-2 UNDER SECTION 250 OF THE IT ACT FOR THE AY 2016-17 IN DIN AND ORDER NO. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1064247144(1) PASSED IN APPEAL NO. CIT(A), BENGALURU - 4/10263/2018-19.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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 any other writ as the Hon'ble High Court may deem fit and quash the following:

ANNEXURE 'D' Impugned appellate order dated 22.04.2024 passed by the Respondent No.2 under section 250 of the IT Act for the AY 2016-17 in DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/ S/250/2024- 25/1064247144(1) passed in Appeal No. CIT (A), Bengaluru- 4/10263/ 2018-19.

ii. Issue any other writ, order or direction to which the Petitioner is found entitled to in the present facts and circumstances.

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 aggrieved by the assessment order dated 18.12.2018, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and when the same was pending adjudication, the appeals were transferred to the National Faceless Appeals Centre - respondent No.2. It is seen that without providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, respondent No.2 has proceeded to pass the impugned order, which is clearly violative of principles of natural justice warranting interference of this Court. 4. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER

(i) The petition is hereby allowed. (ii) Impugned order dated 22.04.2024 at Annexure – D passed by respondent No.2 is hereby set aside. (iii) Matter is remitted back to respondent No.2 for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.

(iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit replies, responses, pleadings, documents, etc., to the respondent, who shall consider the same, provide sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and proceed further in accordance with law.

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

MDS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 17

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →