ULTIMATE CIVIL BUILD TECH vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6552 OF 2023 (T-IT) BETWEEN: ULTIMATE CIVIL BUILD TECH, A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SRI.R.HARI PRASAD, S/O SRI.T.RAMACHANDRA NAIDU, AGED 48 YEARS, OFFICE AT CU 003, ULTIMATE SIGNATURE 98/2, 99/2, ISRO LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560 064.

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

Digitally signed by NARASIMHA MURTHY VANAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

NO.1, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.

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

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148A(b) OF THE ACT DATED 24.05.2022 BEARING DIN AND LETTER NO.ITBA/COM/F/17/2022- 23/1043147669(1) ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18 HEREIN MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A1; TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 15.07.2022 PASSED UNDER SECTION 148A(b) OF ACT

DIN AND ORDER NO.ITBA/COM/F/17/2022-23/1043879248(1) BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18 HEREIN MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A2; TO ORDER UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT BEARING DIN AND NO.ITBA/AST/M/148-1/2022-23/1043881292 (1) ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18 HEREIN MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A3; TO 29.06.2021 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT DIN AND NO.ITBA/AST/S/148- 1/2021-22/1033814478(1) BY

RESPONDENT NO. 3 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18 HEREIN MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A4; TO IMPUGNED INSTRUCTION NO.1/2022 11.05.2022 BY RESPONDENT NO. 1 (ANNEXURE-B) TO THE EXTENT THAT THE SAME PURPORTS TO GIVE POWER TO THE RESPONDENT NO. 4 TO GRANT APPROVAL FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT BEYOND A PERIOD OF 3 YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR WITHOUT HAVING REGARD TO THE JURISDICTIONAL CONDITIONS SET OUT UNDER SECTION 151(i) OF THE ACT.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN "B" GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER

The petitioner has called in question the following notices and orders, which relate to the assessment year 2017-18:

a) Notice dated 24.05.2022 [Anneuxure-A1] issued by the second respondent under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short, 'the I.T.Act'],

b) Order dated 15.07.2022 [Annexure-A2] by the second respondent under Section 148A(d) of the I.T.Act.

c) Notices dated 15.07.2022 issued by the second respondent [Annexure-A3] and dated 29.06.2021 [Annexure-A4] issued by the third respondent under Section 148 of the I.T.Act.

d) Quash the Instruction dated 11.05.2022 issued by the first respondent [Annexure- B].

Sri. S.Annamalai, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri. M.Dilip, the learned counsel for the respondents, are heard for final disposal of the petition.

The petitioner's preliminary grievance with the impugned adjudication order dated 15.07.2022 and the issuance of subsequent notices is essentially premised in the assertion that the petitioner has filed its response after receipt of notice dated 24.05.2022, but the adjudication order dated 15.07.2022 is on the

ground that the petitioner has not filed any response. It is stated on behalf of the respondents that the proceedings are before the Central Circle and as such, the response, if any would be filed in physical form and it has not been received by the Assessing Officer.

In rejoinder, it is stated that the response as per Annexure-E is filed through the internet portal on 08.07.2022 and in fact, a copy of the acknowledgment in this regard is placed on record. It remains re-doubtable from the afore that there is lack of due consideration and the petition must be favoured on this limited ground leaving open all other grounds to be urged before the second respondent.

For the foregoing, the following:

ORDER

The petition is allowed. The impugned order dated under Section

148A(d) of the I.T.Act (Annexure-A2) and the consequential notice dated (Annexure-A3) under Section 148 of the I.T.Act are quashed and the proceedings are restored to the second respondent - the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - for reconsideration with liberty to the petitioner to file additional pleading. It would be needless to observe that this Court has not otherwise commented on the merits of reassessment proceedings.

SD/- JUDGE