Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022 BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.23296/2022 (T-IT) BETWEEN:
JNANABANDHU EDUCATION TRUST NO.180, EREGOWDA HOUSE MANATA PANDAVAPURA ROAD DEVEGOWDANA KOPPAL MANDYA-571 434 (ACTIVITY OF RUNNING EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS) (PAN-AABTJ3886A) PRESENTLY AT NO.848, 2ND STAGE KRISHNA NAGARA PANDAVAPURA TOWN MANDYA-571 434 REPRESENTED BY ITS TRUSTEE SRI M.R.KUMARASWAMY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS S/O LATE RAJEGOWDA
… PETITIONER
(BY SMT.JINITA CHATERJEE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE ASSESSMENT UNIT INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE DELHI
… RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.M.DILIP, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 2309.2022 PASSES U/S 143(3) RWS 144B OF THE ACT FOR THE AY 2020-21 ALONG WITH THE DEMAND NOTICE
DATED 23.09.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE-D) AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs: (a) Issue a writ of certiorari or a direction in the nature of writ of certiorari, quashing the assessment order dated 23.09.2022 passed under section 143(3) rws 144B of the Act for the assessment year 2020-21 along with the demand notice dated 23.09.2022 issued by the Respondent (ANNEXURE-D);
(b) Issue a Writ of Prohibition or a direction in the nature of Writ of Prohibition, restraining the Respondent from enforcing the demand in pursuance of the assessment order dated 23.09.2022 passed under Section 143(3) rws 144B of the Act for the assessment year 2020-21 along with the demand notice dated 23.09.2022 issued by the Respondent (Annexure-D).
(c) Issue a writ of mandamus or a direction in the nature of writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondent to give a fresh opportunity to enable the Petitioner to file all the particulars as called for in
the show cause notice dated 12.09.2022 to appear on 16.09.2022 to satisfy himself as to the loss declared by the Petitioner and to pass an appropriate assessment order;
(d) For such further and other orders and reliefs as the case may require.
(e) Direct the Respondent to award the costs of this Writ petition.”
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.
In addition to reiterate various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the documents produced, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent issued a notice under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) dated 12.09.2022 calling upon the petitioner to submit response on or before 16.09.2022. On that day, i.e., 16.09.2022, petitioner submitted a request for adjournment for a period of four days. It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite specific request made by the petitioner seeking
adjournment up to 20.09.2022, respondent proceeded to issue show-cause notice dated 17.09.2022 fixing the date of compliance as 21.09.2022, by which time the petitioner was not in a position to furnish/upload all documents due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause as a result of which, the respondent proceeded to pass the impugned order without providing sufficient or reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and as such, the petitioner is before this Court by way of present writ petition.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would support the impugned order and submits that there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, pursuant to the notice at Annexure-B issued under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 12.09.2022 by the respondent, petitioner submitted a request seeking adjournment on 16.09.2022 specifically contending that due to covid-19 pandemic and ill-health of the petitioner and to enable the petitioner to
collate and produce necessary data/material and since the Auditor was not in station, petitioner requires some more time. Despite the specific request for adjournment submitted by the petitioner, respondent, instead of considering the said request, has issued the impugned show-cause notice dated 17.09.2022 which was followed by the impugned order, without providing sufficient or reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.
Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order deserves to be set aside and matter be remitted back for reconsideration afresh from the stage of issuance of notice dated 12.09.2022 under Section 142(1) of the Act.
In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) Petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 23.09.2022 at Annexure-D issued by the respondent is hereby set aside.
(iii) The matter is remitted back to the respondent for reconsideration afresh from the stage of issuance of notice dated 12.09.2022 under Section 142(1) of the Act, to which the petitioner would be entitled to submit a reply along with documents, which shall be considered by the respondent, who shall proceed further in accordance with law.
SD/- JUDGE
PKS