SMT. SOWBHAGYA VIJAYKUMAR vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT/INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP/6090/2024HC KarnatakaKAHC01009846202423 April 2024Author: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR5 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the petition. It found that the petitioner's inability to submit a reply to the notice under Section 148A(b) and contest the proceedings was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances, and sufficient cause. Adopting a justice-oriented approach, the Court deemed it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned assessment order and consequential notices. The matter was remitted back to Respondent No. 2 for reconsideration afresh from the stage of submitting a reply to the show cause notice dated March 20, 2022, under Section 148A(b) of the IT Act. The petitioner was granted liberty to file pleadings, objections, and documents, which would be considered by Respondent No. 1, who was directed to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and proceed in accordance with law. The ratio decidendi is that a procedural lapse on the part of the assessee, if bonafide and due to sufficient cause, should not lead to a final order without providing an opportunity to be heard, especially when the notice initiating the crucial stage of proceedings was not received.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Smt. Sowbhagya Vijaykumar, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging an assessment order dated March 24, 2023, passed by the Assessment Unit/Income Tax Officer (Respondent No. 1) under Section 147 read with Section 144 and Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2018-19. The petitioner also challenged the consequential computation sheet and demand notice. The petitioner's primary contention was that she did not receive the show cause notice dated March 20, 2022, issued under Section 148A(b) of the IT Act, preventing her from submitting a reply and contesting the proceedings. The respondents argued that the petition had no merit.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned assessment order dated March 24, 2023, passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 and Section 144B of the IT Act for AY 2018-19 is liable to be quashed on the ground that the petitioner did not receive the show cause notice dated March 20, 2022, issued under Section 148A(b) of the IT Act, thereby denying her an opportunity to contest the proceedings. Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the non-receipt of the show cause notice under Section 148A(b) was a bonafide omission due to unavoidable circumstances, and as a result, she could not submit her reply and contest the proceedings. She sought to have the impugned order and consequential notices set aside and the matter remitted back for reconsideration with an opportunity for a personal hearing. Revenue's contention: The respondents contended that there was no merit in the petition and it was liable to be dismissed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 148A(b),Section 156

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 6090 OF 2024 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

SMT. SOWBHAGYA VIJAYKUMAR W/O. LATE SRI. B. S. VIJAYKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC HOMEMAKER, NO. 163, 4TH CROSS, MALLAPPA LAYOUT, BABUSAPALYA, NEAR KEMPFORT APARTMENT, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU-560 043, PAN: ADCPV4278N

EARLIER AT 83/1, MALLAPPA LAYOUT, BABUSAPALYA, KALYAN NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 043.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. BALACHANDRAN B S.,ADVOCATE) AND:

1.

ASSESSMENT UNIT / INCOME TAX OFFICER INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001.

2.

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2)(1), BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK,

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

NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 095.

3.

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BENGALURU-1, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 095.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. DILIP.,ADVOCATE)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ANNX-H IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER DTD. 24.03.2023 PASSED BY THE R-1 UNDER SECTION 147 READ WITH SECTION 144 READ WITH SECTION 144B OF THE IT ACT FOR THE AY 2018-19 IN DIN AND ORDER NO. ITBA/AST/S/147/2022-23/1051252902(1).

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

ORDER

In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs: “Wherefore it is most humbly prayed to this Hon’ble High Court may deem fit and quash the following: ANNEXURE ‘H’ Impugned assessment order dated 24.03.2023 passed by the Respondent No.1 under section 147 read with section 144 read with section 144B of the IT Act for the AY 2018-19 in DIN & Order No.ITBA/AST/S//147/2022-23/1051252902(1)

ANNEXURE ‘H1’ Impugned computation sheet dated 24.03.2023 passed by the Respondent No.1 under Section 147 read with section 144 of the IT Act for the AY 2018-19 in DIN & Document No.ITBA/AST/S/183/2022- 23/1051253196(1) ANNEXURE ‘H2’ Impugned demand notice dated 24.03.2023 issued by the Respondent No.1 under section 156 of the IT Act for the AY 2018-19 in DIN & Notice No..ITBA/AST/S/156/2022-23/105125132(1) ii. Issue any other writ, order or direction to which the petitioner is found entitled to in the present facts and circumstances.”

2.

In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the memorandum of petition and referring to the material on record, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners did not receive the show cause notice dated 20.03.2022 issued by the respondent No.2 under Section 148 A(b) of the IT Act, as a result of which the petitioner could not submit its reply and contest the proceedings which culminated in the impugned order and consequential notices which deserve to be set aside and the matter remitted back to the respondent for reconsideration afresh by providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the

petitioner and giving him an opportunity of personal hearing in the matter.

3.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that there is no merit in the petition and same is liable to be dismissed. 4. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the inability and omission on the part of the petitioner to submit its reply to the notice under Section 148 A(b) of the IT Act and contest the proceedings was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause. Under these circumstances, adopting a justice oriented approach and in order to provide one more opportunity to the petitioner to file its reply along with the documents and contest the show cause notice and proceedings pursuant thereto, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order at Annexure – H and consequential notices at Annexures – H1 and H2, consequently remit the matter back to the respondent No.2 for reconsideration afresh from the stage of submission of reply to the show cause notice dated 20.03.2022 under Section 148 A(b) of the IT Act, and proceed further in accordance with law.

5.

In the result, I pass the following: ORDER

(i) Petition is hereby allowed.

(ii) The impugned order at Annexures – H and notices at H1 and H2 are hereby set aside.

(iii) The matter is remitted back to the respondent No.2 for reconsideration afresh from the stage of the petitioner filing objections to show cause notice dated 20.03.2022 issued under Section 148 A(b) of the IT Act.

(iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to file pleadings, objections, documents etc., which shall be considered by the respondent No.1 who shall provide an opportunity to the petitioner and hear him and proceed further in accordance with law.

Sd/- JUDGE DHA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →