PATADIA CRYSTAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP/104932/2021HC KarnatakaKAHC02024855202117 December 2021Bench: N.S.SANJAY GOWDA3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The tribunal held that the assessment order was passed in violation of the mandatory requirement of granting an opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the impugned order was quashed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner sought to quash an assessment order for AY 2013-14, alleging they were not granted an opportunity of hearing. The Assessing Authority's order mentioned issuing show cause notices and receiving submissions, but the court found no clear indication of an actual hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was provided with a proper opportunity of hearing before the assessment order was passed. Whether the assessment order is vitiated due to non-compliance with principles of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA W.P.NO.104932/2021 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

PATADIA CRYSTAL PROPERTIES PVT., LTD., 2ND FLOOR, DIAMOND CORNER, DESHPANDE NAGAR, HUBLI – 580 079, DIST: DHARWAD. REP. BY ITS PARTNER, SRI. RAJU PATADIA, AGE: 56 YEARS. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. GANGADHAR J. M., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SEDAM ROAD, KALABURAGI – 585 105.

2.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, C. R, BUILDING, NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI – 580 025.

3.

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, C. R. BUILDING,NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI – 580 025.

4.

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION), 2ND FLOOR, C. R. BUILDING ANNEXE, NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI – 580 025. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. Y. V. RAVIRAJ, ADVOCATE)

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 30.09.2021 BEARING NO.ITBA/AST/S/153C/2021-22/1036041100(1) ANNEXURE-K FOR A.Y.2013-14.

: 2 : THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that they were not granted an opportunity of hearing and the said order is required to be quashed as it was in violation of the mandatory requirement.

2.

In the impugned order, the Assessing Authority has stated as follows:

“3.7. The assessee was issued a detailed show cause notice on 27.05.2021 in DIN No.ITBA/AST/F/153C(SCN)/2021-22/1033127371(1) and the it was requested to furnish the details as called for vide this show cause notice. The assessee again requested for some time through letter emailed on 03.06.2021. Accordingly, the time was further granted upto 14.06.2021 to submit the relevant details called for. However, again on the same date i.e. on 14.06.2021, the assessee through email sent a letter to this office and asked for an adjournment. In the interest of the natural justice and covid-19 situations, the assessee was considered one more and final opportunity of being heard upto 21.06.2021 to file the submissions, details called for as per show cause notice.

4.

In response to the final opportunity granted to submit the relevant details upto 21.06.2021 and in accordance with the detailed show cause notice issued dated 27.05.2021, the assessee filed its submissions on 23.06.2021 to this office, which are perused, considered and brought into records. The issues were brought into the notice of the assessee vide this office notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act, dated 20.04.2021 & show cause notice issued dated 27.05.2021. Subsequently, one of the directors of the assessee company Shri. Raju Patadia appeared time to time and made submissions; furnished

: 3 : relevant documents called for and case discussed. On giving enough opportunity of being heard, discussions and considering the submissions made by the assessee, assessment order is passed in the subsequent paras”.

3.

The order does not indicate that an enquiry was conducted or that a hearing was granted to the petitioner. This position is also not disputed by Sri. Y. R. Raviraj.

4.

It is to be noticed here that the period mentioned in the impugned order relates to the period when the entire nation was subject to a lock-down. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner is only seeking an opportunity of hearing, in my view, it would be just necessary to grant them an opportunity of hearing.

5.

I therefore, quash the impugned orders and direct the Assessing Authority to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass a fresh order.

Writ petition is accordingly allowed.

It is needless to state that all the contentions available to the petitioner can be raise before the Assessing Authority.

Sd/- JUDGE SSP

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →