KHAN HABEEB vs. THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT

PDF · subscribers
WP/20390/2022HC KarnatakaKAHC01046816202220 October 2022Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Court noted that the Assessment Order, which formed the basis for the penalty, had already been set aside by the same Court in a previous writ petition. Consequently, the penalty order was also deemed unsustainable.

What were the facts?

The petitioner sought to quash a penalty order passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. This penalty order was based on a prior Assessment Order.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty order can sustain when the assessment order it is based upon has been set aside.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.20390/2022 (T-IT) BETWEEN: KHAN HABEEB S/O LATE JALEEL KHAN AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS NO.H-03, K H B, GOPPISHETTY KOPPA SHIVAMOGGA - 577 202

… PETITIONER (BY SRI. R. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE AND SRI KASHINATH KALMATH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI R. RAMA MURTHY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/

INCOME TAX OFFICER/

NATIONAL FACE LESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE

DELHI - 110 001. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

WARD-I & TPS,

NO.75, 100 FT. ROAD,

GOPAL GOWDA EXTENSION

SHIVAMOGA - 577 201.

… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. DILEEP, ADVOCATE FOR SRI K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF PENALTY DATED 25.09.2022 PASSED U/S 271(1)(C), NO.ITBA/PNL/F/271(1)(C)/2022-23/1045930844(1) (ANNEXURE-B) PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TILL THE DISPOSAL OF THE PETITIONER'S WRIT PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ETC.

THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- ORDER

In this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned penalty order at Annexure-'B' dated 25.09.2022 and other reliefs.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

3.

A perusal of the material on record will fairly indicate that prior to the issuance of impugned penalty order, the respondent No.1 has passed the Assessment Order dated 30.03.2022 which has been set aside by this Court in W.P.No.15957/2022 vide order dated 20.10.2022.

4.

Under these circumstances, in view of setting aside of the Assessment Order dated 30.03.2022 in W.P.No.15957/2022, which was the basis for respondents to issue the impugned penalty order, I am of the considered view that the impugned penalty order also deserves to be set aside.

5.

In the result, I pass the following ORDER

Petition is hereby allowed. The impugned penalty order at Annexure-'B' dated 25.09.2022 is hereby set aside. Sd/- JUDGE VGR

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →