SHRI CHIKKARANGAIAH GOVINDARAJU vs. UNION OF INDIA

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.17843 OF 2021 (T-IT) BETWEEN: SHRI. CHIKKARANGAIAH GOVINDARAJU S/O LATE CHIKKARANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS NO.1220/B, 7TH A CROSS 6TH MAIN ROAD, KENGERI SATALITE TOWN BENGALURU – 560 060. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. ATUL KRISHNA RAO ALUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI – 110 001 2. THE PRINCIPAL OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX C.R. BUILDING, NO.1 QUEENS ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001. 3. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(2)(1) NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE DELHI – 110 001. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.E.I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 144B OF THE I.T. ACT DATED 17.04.2021 PASSED BY THE R-3

2 VIDE ANNEXURE-M IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- ORDER In this petition, petitioner seeks quashing of the order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'I.T.Act') dated 17.04.2021 at Annexure – M and the order passed under Section 154 of I.T.Act at Annexure – P dated 30.07.2021 issued by respondent No.3 and for other reliefs. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the documents produced by the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner invites my attention to the Draft Assessment Order dated 19.02.2021 issued by the respondents to the petitioner pursuant to which, the petitioner submitted a reply dated 25.02.2021 along with all relevant documents

3 and material which was also uploaded by the petitioner on the website on 25.02.2021 itself. In the said reply, petitioner also sought for personal hearing in the matter. 4. Subsequently, the respondents having issued one more notice dated 02.03.2021 to the petitioner, the petitioner sent a reply dated 17.03.2021 once again reiterating all his objections and documents. It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite the petitioner submitting objections with documents on 25.02.2021 as well as on 17.03.2021, while the objections dated 25.02.2021 and documents produced by the petitioner have not been considered or appreciated properly in the impugned assessment order, the subsequent reply / objections dated 17.03.2021 submitted by the petitioner has neither been adverted to nor considered by the respondents who have not also provided personal hearing to the petitioner as requested by him and consequently, the impugned assessment order being not only contrary to law but also violative of principles of natural justice, the same deserves to be quashed by this Court. It is also submitted

4 that in addition to the documents already produced by the petitioner, the petitioner has recently discovered certain additional material / documents in support of his claim and the same would be produced by the petitioner, if one more opportunity is granted to the petitioner to submit the same by setting aside the impugned Assessment Order. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner has already filed rectification application at Annexure-N dated 26.07.2021, in case this Court sets aside the impugned assessment order and provides one more opportunity to the petitioner, the petitioner would withdraw the said rectification application. 5. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, a perusal of the material on record including the impugned assessment order will indicate that apart from the fact that the respondents have not properly considered or appreciated the objections and documents

5 produced by the petitioner on 25.02.2021, the respondents have neither adverted to nor considered the reply dated 17.03.2021 submitted by the petitioner in addition to not providing personal hearing to the petitioner despite request being made by him in this regard which clearly indicates that the impugned assessment order is violative of principles of natural justice and the same deserves to be quashed and the matter remitted back to the respondents for reconsideration afresh particularly in the light of the specific contention urged by the petitioner that he intends to produced additional documents and material in support of his claim, if an opportunity is granted to him and that he would withdraw the rectification application. 7. In the result, I pass following: ORDER i) The Writ Petition is hereby allowed. The impugned assessment order at Annexure- M dated 17.04.2021 and impugned order at Annexure – P dated 30.07.2021 passed by respondent No.3 are hereby quashed;

6 ii) So also the Demand Notice at Annexure-E dated 09.12.2020 is hereby quashed; iii) The matter is remitted back to the respondent No.3 for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law after providing an opportunity to the petitioner to produce additional documents and submit additional objections to the notices issued by the respondents. Upon the petitioner submitting the said documents and objections to the respondent No.3, respondent No.3 is directed to consider the entire material on record including the earlier replies and documents submitted by the petitioner and the subsequent replies and documents to be submitted by the petitioner and conclude the proceedings in accordance with law. Sd/- JUDGE Prs*