Sri G Satish Kumar vs PCIT | Karnataka High Court 2021

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.20933 OF 2021 (T-IT) BETWEEN: SRI. G. SATISH KUMAR SON OF GANGADHAR M.N., AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDINT AT NO.13, 1ST CROSS, PREMME GOWDA BLOCK, J.C. NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 006. …PETITIONER (BY SRI GAUTAM S. BHARADWAJ, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 3RD FLOOR, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BENGALURU-560 001.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27.09.2021 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE ANNEXED AS ANNEXURE-A AND THE CONSEQUENTIAL DEMAND NOTICE DATED 27.09.2021 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.

THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

2 ORDER

In this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned order at Annexure-A dated 27.09.2021 and the consequential demand notice at Annexure-B dated 27.09.2021 passed by respondent No.2.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.

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 notice issued by respondent No.2 under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 09.09.2021 in order to contend that on account of the serious illnesses and ailments viz., liver and brain tumor of his wife, who was undergoing treatment for the said ailments, the petitioner appeared before respondent No.2 and requested him to grant reasonable time of 30 days to submit the books of accounts and other documents in answer to the aforesaid notice. It is the

3 grievance of the petitioner that his inability and omission to produce the documents, books of accounts etc., in response to the aforesaid notice dated 09.09.2021 was on account of bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause and consequently, he was not in a position to produce the said documents prior to 27.09.2021, on which day respondent No.2 proceeded to pass the impugned order and issued consequential notice, aggrieved by which the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. It is also submitted that if an opportunity is granted, even on the merits of his claim, the petitioner will place sufficient material and also produce additional material to substantiate his claim/defence before respondent No.2, if an opportunity is given to the petitioner to produce the same by setting aside the orders and notices and remit the matter back to respondent No.2.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that sufficient opportunity had already been granted in favour of the petitioner, who did not

4 avail the same and as such, there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

Though several contentions have been urged by the petitioner on merits and on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, it is relevant to state that at paragraph 5 of the Memorandum of Petition, the petitioner has specifically stated that his wife is suffering from liver and brain tumor and was undergoing treatment and consequently, pursuant to the notice dated 09.09.2021 passed under Section 142(1) of the IT Act, the petitioner appeared before respondent No.2 and requested granting of 30 days time to submit the books of accounts and other documents. In view of the specific assertion of the petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice, it is just and proper to set aside the impugned order and notices and remit the matter back to respondent No.1 by providing one more opportunity to the petitioner to produce the books of accounts and other documents in support of his claims/defences. Under these circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim of

5 the petitioner, I deem it just and proper to set aside the impugned order and notices and remit the matter back to respondent No.2 for re-consideration afresh, in accordance with law. 6. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned order bearing No.ITBA/AST/M/153A/2021-22/1035944816(1) dated 27.09.2021 at Annexure-A and the consequential demand notice bearing No.ITBA/AST/M/153A/2021- 22/1035944821(1) dated 27.09.2021 at Annexure-B passed by respondent No.2, are hereby set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted back to respondent No.2 for reconsideration afresh after providing one more opportunity to the petitioner to file his defence/objections and to substantiate his claim/defence by producing the books of accounts, documents etc., before respondent No.2.

6 (iv) The petitioner undertakes to appear before respondent No.2 on 10.01.2022 without awaiting further notice from respondent No.2. (v) All rival contentions on merits/demerits are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same. SD/- JUDGE Bmc

SRI G SATISH KUMAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX