SRI SHANTHAKUMAR MALAGI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP/8630/2022HC KarnatakaKAHC01018269202209 June 2022Bench: M.I.ARUN6 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Court set aside the preliminary order on jurisdiction and the subsequent assessment orders. The matter was remanded back to the assessing officer to reconsider the case on merits.

What were the facts?

The petitioner challenged an assessment order for AY 2017-18, alleging procedural irregularities and denial of an opportunity to present his case. A preliminary order on jurisdiction was passed based on an overruled judgment.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessment order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice and based on an overruled legal precedent.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2022

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

WRIT PETITION No.8630 OF 2022 (T-IT)

BETWEEN:

SRI. SHANTHAKUMAR MALAGI, S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED 64 YEARS, R/AT. VILLA NO.78, PRESTIGE OASIS, DODDABALLAPUR ROAD, ADDE VISHWANATHAPURA, BENGALURU – 560 064.

... PETITIONER

(BY SRI.M.V.SESHACHALA, SENIOR ADV. FOR SRI.ARAVIND V. CHAVAN, ADV.)

AND:

1.

ASSESSING OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NO.412-413, 1ST FLOOR, OPP. METRO PILLAR NO.793, DWARKA MOR, NEW DELHI – 110 059.

2.

JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE – 2(3) (1), BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU – 560 095.

3.

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – 2,

- 2 - BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU – 560 095. … RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 27.03.2022 BEARING NO.ITBA/AST/S/147/2021-22/1041772175(1) PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE – Q FOR A.Y.2017-18 AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 27.03.2022 bearing DIN No.ITBA/AST/S/147/2021-22/1041772175(1) vide Annexure – Q to the writ petition, the instant writ petition is filed.

2.

The impugned assessment order passed in respect of petitioner pertains to the assessment year 2017-2018. The case of the petitioner is that there are procedural irregularities committed by the respondents resulting in failure of opportunity being given to the petitioner to present his case, consequent to which, the impugned order

- 3 - has been passed. On the said ground, the said impugned order is sought to be set aside.

3.

It is noticed that initially assessment order under Section 143 (3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) was passed on 26.12.2019 wherein, the purchase and development of the property by the petitioner was referred to District Valuation Officer to ascertain the fair market value of the asset and upon receipt of the valuation report, notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued and the assessment was re-opened. The petitioner filed his objections. There was a preliminary order as to the jurisdiction on 17.12.2021 bearing DIN No.ITBA/AST/F/17/2021-22/1037911763(1) (vide Annexure – K to the writ petition). It is noticed that the said order was passed by placing reliance of the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax and others vs. Rinku Chakraborthy reported in (2011) 242 CTR 425 (Kar). It is submitted that the said judgment has been subsequently over ruled by this Hon’ble Court in the case of Dell India Private Limited vs. Joint

- 4 - Commissioner of Income Tax (LTU) and others reported in (2021) 432 ITR 212 (Kar).

4.

The said aspect has not been disputed by the either of the parties. Thus, the order passed at Annexure – K to the writ petition itself requires to be set aside.

5.

In respect of jurisdiction, a draft assessment order is passed dated 25.03.2022. It is the contention of the petitioner that the same was not provided to him and he could not file objections upon the said draft assessment order. However, pursuant to passing of the said draft assessment order, on the ground that no objection was filed, the said assessment order was passed on 25.03.2022 vide Annexure – Q to the writ petition which is impugned herein.

6.

It is contended by the petitioner that pursuant to passing of draft assessment order, the same was not made available to him and he was denied opportunity for filing objections to it. However, during the course of the arguments both counsel for the assessee and revenue

- 5 - submit that the initial preliminary order as to the jurisdiction dated 17.12.2021 vide Annexure – K to the writ petition has been passed placing reliance upon the decision of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax and others vs. Rinku Chakraborthy reported in (2011) 242 CTR 425 (Kar) as stated above and the said order itself is bad for placing reliance upon the judgment that is over ruled by this Court and relevant order is required to be passed based upon the decision of this Court in the case of Dell India Private Limited vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (LTU) and others reported in (2021) 432 ITR 212 (Kar). However, it is contended that the order dated 17.12.2021 bearing DIN No.ITBA/AST/F/17/2021-22/1037911763(1) vide Annexure K to the writ petition is not in challenge. This being a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court is empowered to mould the relief to meet the ends of justice.

7.

For the said reasons, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and matter requires to be remanded back to the

- 6 - authorities with a direction to pass necessary orders in accordance with law. Hence, the following:- ORDER i) The order dated 17.12.2021 bearing DIN No. ITBA/AST/F/17/2021-22/1037911763(1) vide Annexure – K to the writ petition is hereby set aside. Consequently, the draft assessment order dated 25.03.2022 and the final assessment order dated 27.03.2022 bearing DIN No.ITBA/AST/S/147-2021- 22/1041772175(1) vide Annexure – Q to the writ petition are hereby set aside. ii) The matter is remanded back to assessing officer to consider the case of the petitioner on merits from the stage of disposal of objections to the re-opening of assessment and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. iii) The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE

MH/-

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →