Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO.19352/2021 (T-IT)
BETWEEN:
M. RAMESH (HUF) REP. BY ITS KARTHA, SRI. M.RAMESH, SON OF SRI ABBAIAH MUNIREDDY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, NO.6/4, HONGASANDRA BEGUR, BENGALURU-560068.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI S.ANNAMALAI, ADVOCATE )
AND:
1 . NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE REP. BY ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX/INCOME-TAX OFFICER, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ROOM NO.401, 2ND FLOOR, E-RAMP, JAWARHALAL NEHRU STADIUM, DELHI-110003.
2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 7(1)(1), BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560095.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE R1 UNDER SECTION 143(3) R/W SECTION 114B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DATED 13.08.2021 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2018-19 HEREIN MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A1 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Sri K.V.Aravind, learned counsel accepts notice for the respondents.
In this petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs: “(i) Issue a writ of Certiorari and direction in the nature of a writ of certiorari quashing the assessment order passed by the Respondent No.1 under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 13.08.2021 for the assessment year 2018-19 herein marked as Annexure-A1.
(ii) Issue a writ of Certiorari and direction in the nature of a writ of certiorari quashing the Computation sheet passed by the Respondent No.1 for the assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 13.08.2021 for the assessment year 2018-19 herein marked as Annexure-A2.
(iii) Issue a writ of Certiorari and direction in the nature of a writ of certiorari quashing the Notice of demand issued under section 156 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 13.08.2021 for the assessment year 2018- 19 for a sum of Rs.2,94,78,197/- herein marked as Annexure-A3.
(iv) Issue a writ of Certiorari and direction in the nature of a writ of certiorari quashing the Notice of penalty issued under section 274
3 read with section 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 13.08.2021 for the assessment year 2018-19 herein marked as Annexure-A4.
(v) And pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity.”
Heard Sri S.Annamalai, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri K.V.Aravind, learned counsel for respondents and perused the petition papers.
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 invited my attention to the material on record including the notice dated 19.07.2021 in order to point out that the respondents called upon to submit a reply on or before 01.08.2021. It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite the petitioner submitting a detailed reply along with documents vide Annexure-P dated 30.07.2021 and also requested for personal hearing in the matter, respondent No.1 proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 13.08.2021 without considering or adverting to the aforesaid reply and
4 documents submitted by the petitioner nor did respondents provide an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner as requested by him, thereby violating principles of natural justice and consequently, the impugned order deserves to be quashed. It is further submitted that pursuant to and consequential upon the impugned order, respondent No.1 has also issued a computation sheet, demand notice and penalty notice, all dated 13.08.2021 and as such, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
As rightly contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, a perusal of the notice dated 19.07.2021 will indicate that the respondents have called upon the petitioner to submit his reply and documents on or before 01.08.2021, pursuant to which, the petitioner submitted his detailed reply along with documents on 31.07.2021, wherein he also sought for personal
5 hearing in the matter. A perusal of the impugned Assessment Order will indicate that despite the petitioner submitting a detailed reply along with all relevant documents and requesting for personal hearing, respondent No.1 has proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 13.08.2021 neither considering the reply and documents submitted by the petitioner nor his request for personal hearing and consequently, the impugned assessment order and the consequential computation sheet, demand notice and penalty notice are clearly violative of principles of natural justice and the same deserve to be quashed and the matter be remitted back to respondent No.1 for re-consideration afresh, after considering the reply and documents submitted by the petitioner and affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner and giving him personal hearing, in accordance with law.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby allowed;
6 (ii) The impugned Assessment Order dated 13.08.2021 at Annexure-A1, the Computation Sheet dated 13.08.2021 at Annexure-A2, Demand Notice dated 13.08.2021 at Annexure-A3 and Notice of Penalty dated 13.08.2021 at Annexure- A4 are hereby quashed; (iii) The matter is remitted back to the first respondent for re-consideration afresh, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing considering the documents and the reply submitted by the petitioner; (iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to file additional reply and documents before respondent No.1, who is directed to consider the entire material on record and conclude the proceedings in accordance with law; Subject to the above directions, the petition is allowed.
Sd/- JUDGE