M/S S B LOGISTICS REP BY ITS PARTNER vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP/100527/2022HC KarnatakaKAHC02001477202216 January 2024Author: HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR3 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, considered the memo filed by the petitioner seeking to withdraw the writ petition. The memo indicated that following the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal, the respondent had issued a notice under Section 148A(b) of the IT Act and subsequently concluded the assessment under Section 147 read with Section 144B. An appeal against this assessment order has already been filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Given these developments, the Court found no impediment to allowing the withdrawal of the petition. The petition was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty reserved to the petitioner to file a fresh petition if an occasion arises. The Court did not decide on the merits of the original issues raised regarding the Section 148 notice or the validity of the CBDT notifications.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s S B Logistics, represented by its partner Sri K Janardhan Reddy, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench. The petition challenged a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, dated 29/06/2021, for Assessment Year 2014-15, issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward No.1 and TPS, Ballari. The petitioner also sought to declare certain notifications issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes as ultra vires. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a memo seeking to withdraw the petition. The memo stated that in light of the Supreme Court decision in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal, the respondent issued a notice under Section 148A(b) and concluded the assessment under Section 147 read with Section 144B. An appeal has been filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, dated 29/06/2021, for Assessment Year 2014-15, is valid and legally sustainable? 2. Whether the Explanation below Clause (a) in Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, are ultra vires the Income-Tax Act, 1961, and the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020? Assessee's Contention: The assessee challenged the validity of the Section 148 notice and the legality of the CBDT notifications. The assessee argued that these actions were bad in law. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record specific contentions from the revenue regarding the validity of the notice or the notifications. However, the subsequent filing of a notice under Section 148A(b) and conclusion of assessment under Section 147 read with Section 144B, as stated in the withdrawal memo, indicates the revenue's position in proceeding with the reassessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A,Section 147,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 100527 OF 2022 (T-IT) BETWEEN: 1. M/S S B LOGISTICS REP BY ITS PARTNER SRI. K JANARDHAN REDDY, S/O SRI K VEMANARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, NO.4, PRAGATHI PARADISE, 1ST MAIN, HARSHA LAYOUT, YELACHANAHALLI, BENGALURU 560078 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHASHANK S HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD NO.1 AND TPS, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, STAFF ROAD FORT, BALLARI, KARNATAKA 583102. 2. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES THROUGH THE CHAIRPERSON, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI 110011 3. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HUBBALLI, C R BUILDING, NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI 580025. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI Y V RAVIRAJ, ADVOCATE)

SUJATA SUBHASH PAMMAR Digitally signed by SUJATA SUBHASH PAMMAR Date: 2024.01.17 20:53:28 -0800

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 DATED 29/06/2021 BEARING DIN AND NOTICE NO.ITBA/AST/S/148/2021-22/1033816733(1) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 HEREIN MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A BY RESPONDENT NO.1 AND DECLARE THAT THE EXPLANATION BELOW CLAUSE (A) IN NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.20/2021/F.NO.370142/35/2020-TPL DATED 31.03.2021 HEREIN MARKED AS ANNEXURE-B AND NO.38/2021/F.NO.370142/35/2020-TPL DATED 27.04.2021 HEREIN MARKED AS ANNEXURE-C ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 IS ULTRA VIRES THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 AND THE PROVISIONS OF THE TAXATION AND OTHER LAWS (RELAXATION AND AMENDMENT OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS) ACT, 2020, AND THUS BAD IN LAW AND ETC.

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

The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo seeking leave of this Court to withdraw the petition stating that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India –vs- Ashish Agarwal 138 taxmann.com 64 (SC), the respondent No.1 has issued a notice under Section 148A(b) of the IT Act, and subsequently concluded the assessment and passed assessment order under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act. Being aggrieved, an appeal is filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, New Delhi.

2.

The memo is placed on record.

3.

For the reasons stated in the memo, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a petition if an occasion arises.

Sd/- JUDGE

BKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →