SANJEEVA SETTY M (HUF) vs. THE ADDITIONAL / JOINT / DEPUTY / ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX / INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP/7087/2022HC KarnatakaKAHC01014777202208 June 2023Author: S SUNIL DUTT YADAV3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Court noted that the Revenue pointed out that no interim order was passed in the writ petition, and consequently, an assessment order was passed on March 31, 2022. The petitioner filed a memo with a copy of this assessment order. In light of this development, the Court found that the relief sought in the petition needed to be reworked. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of, granting the petitioner liberty to challenge the assessment order dated March 31, 2022, in accordance with the law. All contentions raised in the writ petition were kept open to be raised in a subsequent challenge to the assessment order. The Court did not decide the merits of the original challenge to the Section 148 notice.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sanjeeva Setty M (HUF), filed a writ petition challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Chitradurga, dated May 15, 2020, pertaining to Assessment Year 2014-15. The respondents included various income tax authorities. During the pendency of the writ petition, and in the absence of any interim order, the Revenue proceeded to pass an assessment order on March 31, 2022. The petitioner subsequently filed a memo along with a copy of this assessment order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2014-15 is liable to be quashed. The petitioner's contention is that the notice is bad in law and ought to be set aside. The Revenue's contention is not recorded in the judgment. 2. Whether the assessment order passed during the pendency of the writ petition, without an interim order, requires a fresh consideration of the relief sought. The petitioner's argument is that the subsequent assessment order necessitates a re-evaluation of the relief. The Revenue's argument is that since no interim order was granted, the assessment order was validly passed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 7087 OF 2022 (T-IT) BETWEEN: 1. SANJEEVA SETTY M (HUF) A HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY PARTNER, SRI BASAVESWARA TRADING CO M H ROAD CHITRADURGA-577 201 ALSO AT: "BHADRA SAI" 3RD CROSS V P EXTENSION CHITRADURGA-577 501 REPRESENTED BY ITS KARTA MR M SANJEEVA SETTY S/O LATE SHRI M LINGA SETTY AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS … PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRADEEP KUMAR J., ADVOCATE FOR SRI HARISH V S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ADDITIONAL / JOINT / DEPUTY / ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX / INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE ROOM NO.401, 2ND FLOOR, Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: High Court of Karnataka

E-RAMP, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM NEW DELHI-110 003 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 AAYAKAR BHAVAN TAMATKAL ROAD MEDEHALLY CHITRADURGA-577 502 3. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-DAVANAGERE BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE-560 095 4. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE-560 095 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. DILIP, ADVOCATE) *

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED NOTICE ISSUED BY THE R-2 U/S 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, BEARING DIN AND NOTICE NO. ITBA/AST/S/148/2020-21/1027097183(2), DTD 15.05.2020 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 I.E. ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Learned counsel for the Revenue points out that as there was no interim order passed in the present writ petition, the assessment order itself has been passed on 31.03.2022.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner files a memo along with copy of the Assessment Order. The same is taken on record.

3.

In light of the same, the relief sought for requires to be reworked afresh.

4.

Accordingly, the present petition is disposed off reserving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the assessment order dated 31.03.2022 in accordance with law. All contentions raised in the present writ petition are kept open to be raised in a subsequent attack to the assessment order.

Sd/- JUDGE VP

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →