Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO.8355/2022/(T-IT)
BETWEEN :
UGANE PRATHAMIKA KURUSHI PATTINA SAHAKARA SANGHA LTD KYATHANAHALLI HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT - 573216 REP BY ITS CEO - MR BASAVEGOWDA ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. MAHESH R UPPIN, ADVOCATE)
AND :
ASSESSING OFFICER NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE NEW DELHI - 110002
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE ROOM NO 356, C R BUILDING I P ESTATE NEW DELHI- 110002
INCOME TAX OFFICER AAYAKAR BHAVAN 2ND STAGE, BELUR ROAD HASSAN - 573201 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.V.ARAVIND, ADVOCATE)
2 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PENALTY ORDER DATED 26.03.2022 PASSED BY THE R-1 IN PAN NO.AAAAU4066B MARKED AS ANNEXURE-E AND THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 26.03.2022 BEARING PAN NO.AAAAU4066B ISSUED BY THE R-1 MARKED AS ANNEXURE-F BY ISSUING A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
The petitioner has impugned the Penalty Order dated 26.03.2022 (Annexure-E) and the Demand Notice dated 26.03.2022 (Annexure-F). Sri. Mahesh R Uppin, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. K.V.Aravind, learned counsel, who accepts notice for the respondents, are heard for final disposal of the petition.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Assessment Order is dated 15.04.2021 and the petitioner’s appeal as against this assessment order filed, though beyond the prescribed time limit, would be
3 saved by virtue of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, in RE reported in (2022) 3 Supreme Court Cases 117 and as such, the authorities could not have initiated appeal proceedings and therefore, this Court must intervene.
Sri. K.V.Aravind, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that the third respondent – the Income Tax Officer, after the Assessment Order dated 15.04.2021 and with the issuance of notice for initiation of the penal proceedings, had to complete the penal proceedings before 31.03.2022. The limitation for such closure could not have been saved. The petitioner, if aggrieved by the penalty order must avail remedy under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act 1961. The circumstances relied upon by the petitioner could be considered by the Appellate Authority in such appeal proceedings.
4 On a careful consideration of the rival submissions, this Court is of the considered view that the petition must be disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail alternative remedy under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act 1961. The Authorities must defer proceedings pursuant to the impugned order for a period of six [6] weeks from today.
The petition stands disposed of accordingly leaving all questions open to be considered in the remedy that that would be available to the petitioner under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act 1961 and the further proceedings pursuant to the impugned order shall be deferred as aforesaid.
Sd/-
JUDGE