Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR
W.P. No. 103834/2017 (T-IT) BETWEEN:
SHRI RAMDAS T. VERNEKAR, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, C/O M/S BALAJI AGENCIES, OLD APMC, DHARWAD-580 008. - PETITIONER (BY SRI ASHOK A. KULKARNI, SRI H.R. KAMBIYAVAR AND SMT. PATRI SHASHIKALA, ADVOCATES)
AND:
INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), INCOME TAX OFFICES, NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C.R. BUILDING, NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI. - RESPONDENTS (BY SRI Y.V. RAVIRAJ, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 23.03.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A & ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING ON INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2 ORDER
In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs. (a) Quash by a writ of certiorari or any other writ the Assessment order passed by the 1st respondent dated 23.03.2016 in Annexure-A; (b) Quash by a writ of certiorari or any other writ the order passed u/s 264 by the 2nd respondent dated 07.03.2017 in Annexure-H and for other reliefs.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.
The material on record indicates that proceedings u/S 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 having been initiated by the respondent No.1 against the petitioner, the petitioner appeared in the said proceedings through his Chartered Accountant and contested the said proceedings. Pursuant thereto, the respondent No.1-Income Tax Officer proceeded to pass impugned order at Annexure-A dated 23.03.2016 coming to the conclusion that there was unaccounted
3 deposits to an extent of `87,90,000/- which is to be treated as income and consequently penalty u/S 271(1)(c) has been initiated against the petitioner. Aggrieved by the impugned order at Annexure-A passed by the respondent No.1, petitioner preferred a revision petition before the respondent No.2-Revisioinal Authority which was also dismissed vide impugned order at Annexure-H dated 07.03.2017.
In addition to other contentions urged by the petitioner in the present petition along with documentary evidence, it is the specific contention of the petitioner that before the respondents No.1 and 2, in the original proceedings as well as in the revision proceedings due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause including the health condition of the petitioner’s son as well as son-in-law of the petitioner’s Chartered Accountant, during the proceedings, it was not possible for the petitioner to produce documents and offer explanation
4 with regard to the aforesaid sum of `87,90,000/- and consequently, the impugned orders passed by the respondents without giving sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner are violative of principles of natural justice and the same deserve to be set aside on this ground alone.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, in addition to reiterating various contentions putforth in the statement of objections submits that sufficient opportunity had been granted in favour of the petitioner by both the respondent No.1 as well as respondent No.2 and consequently the impugned orders passed by them do not warrant interference by this Court and the present petition is liable to be dismissed.
Though several contentions have been urged by both sides in support of their respective claims, having regard to the specific assertion on the part of the petitioner that he could not give explanation with regard to the aforesaid
5 deposit of `87,90,000/- nor produce documents in support thereof before the respondents No.1 and 2 due to the ill health and untimely death of his son as well as ill health of his Chartered Accountant’s son-in-law, without expressing anything on the merits/ demerits on the rival contentions and in order to give one more opportunity to the petitioner to contest the proceedings, I deem it just and proper to set aside the impugned orders at Annexures A and H and remit the matter back to the respondent No.1 for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.
In the result, I pass the following order. ORDER i) Writ petition is hereby allowed; ii) The impugned orders at Annexures A dated 23.03.2016 and Annexure-H dated 07.03.2017 are set aside; iii) Matter is remitted back to the respondent No.1- Income Tax Officer for reconsideration afresh in
6 accordance with law after giving sufficient/ reasonable opportunity in favour of the petitioner; iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to produce additional documents and file additional pleadings in support of his contentions/ claim; v) All rival contentions on merits are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same. vi) In view of disposal of the petition on merits, pending I.A. No. 1/2020 also stand disposed of.
SD JUDGE bvv