SRI BALLEKATTE SOMANNA THIPPE SWAMY vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO.271/2020 (T-IT) BETWEEN: Sri. Ballekatte Somanna Thippe Swamy, Son of Late Sri. B.T. Somanna, Aged about 67 years, No.76, 11th Main, VI Sector, HSR Layout, Bengaluru - 560 102. Karnataka, India. … Petitioner (By Sri. S. Annamalai, Advocate) AND: Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 4(3)(1), BMTC Building, 80 Feet Road, 6th Block, Near KHB Games Village, Koramangala, Bengaluru - 560 095. ...Respondent (By Sri. E. I. Sanmathi, Advocate)

2 This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the assessment order passed by the respondent under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act dated 19.12.2019 for the A.Y. 2017-18 vide order along with computation sheet as referred as Annexure - A1 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 The petitioner has challenged the validity of the Assessment Order passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act dated 19.12.2019 for the Assessment Year 2017-18 and also the Computation Sheet at Annexure- A1. The petitioner has also sought for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the Notice of Demand at Annexure- A2 issued under Section 156 of the Income Tax Act. 2. The petitioner submits that pursuant to the Notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act dated 19.07.2019, time was granted to file reply by 30.07.2019.

3 It is further submitted that a fresh Notice came to be issued at Annexure- G once again on 17.12.2019 calling for reply to be furnished by 21.12.2019. It is further submitted that as regard to the Notice dated 17.12.2019, the petitioner had made out reply, copy of which is enclosed at Annexure- J. 3. It is submitted that the Assessing Officer has proceeded to pass the Order of Assessment on 19.12.2019, though as per Annexure- G time was allowed for furnishing of reply till 21.12.2019. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue submits that due to change in the incumbent, it appears that Notice was issued once again as per Annexure- G and there has been some confusion. Taking note of the time fixed at Annexure- G, the Assessment Order is liable to be set aside on the sole ground that the time fixed for furnishing of reply had not yet expired. 5. The petitioner submits that in light of certain defects in the portal, reply was sent by way of e-mail and he

4 may be permitted to file fresh reply as well as to take benefit of the reply already filed. 6. However, in order to avoid confusion in light of two notices issued under Section 142(1) viz., the Notice at Annexure- G dated 17.12.2019 as well as the Notice at Annexure- F dated 19.07.2019 and in light of the submission made by the Revenue, the proceedings would be proceeded with only as regards Notice at Annexure- G. The Revenue is at liberty to take note of the reply already furnished as regard to the Notice dated 19.07.2019 apart from any further reply to be given by the Assessee. 7. In light of the same, the Assessment Order at Annexure- A1 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the respondent to proceed further as regard to the Notice at Annexure- G by taking note of the reply given by the Assessee to the earlier notice as well as the further reply that would be furnished by the Assessee as undertaken by learned counsel for the petitioner.

5 Accordingly, the petition is disposed off. Consequent to setting aside of the Assessment Order, the Demand Notice at Annexure- A2 is also set aside. Sd/- JUDGE PN