Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV
WRIT PETITION No.4963/2020 (T-IT)
BETWEEN:
SRI KUNAL KIRAN PARIKH S/O SRI KIRAN ISHWARAL PARIKH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS NO.214, 1ST FLOOR, DEFENCE COLONY, 3RD MAIN, 5TH CROSS, INDIRA NAGAR, BENGALURU-560038.
… PETITIONER
(BY SMT. VANI H., ADVOCATE)
AND: THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(3)(3), BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, KORMANGALA, BENGALURU-560095.
… RESPONDENT
(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 DATED 31.12.2019 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 44 R.W.S 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner is seeking for issuance of writ in the nature of the certiorari to quash the assessment order dated 31.12.2019 passed by the respondent under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) and has also sought for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the demand notice dated 31.12.2019. Petitioner has further sought for issuance of writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to afford a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and pass fresh assessment order for the year 2012-13.
The petitioner contends that the assessment that has been concluded is without affording an opportunity to the petitioner and that the contents of the assessment order relates to the petitioner having a fixed deposit for an amount of Rs.57,00,750/- which the petitioner denies. It is further submitted that if the
3 petitioner was notified prior to conclusion of the assessment proceedings, petitioner would have placed on record his say as regards to the demand raised on the basis of material taken note of by the Assessing Authority.
Upon notice, learned counsel appearing for the department submits that the question of issuance of notice may not arise in light of the proviso to Section 144 of the Act.
However, without entering into the merits of the contention, in light of the stand taken by the petitioner that the only addition that is made is on the basis of fixed deposit for Rs.57,00,750/- and the other addition relating to credit card bills is something that can be explained if an opportunity is given, the notice of demand at Annexure-F is set aside. The assessment order at Annexure-E is also set aside while making it clear that the contents of assessment order itself is to
4 be treated as show cause notice as contemplated under Section 144 of the Act pursuant to the IT returns at Annexure-D.
The petitioner to submit his reply to the show cause notice as observed above and appear before the Assessing authority without waiting for any fresh notice on 20.03.2020. It is also made clear that the petitioner to be present on such further dates as may be required by the Assessing Officer and co-operate with the proceedings before the Assessing Officer. Such proceedings to be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of appearance of the petitioner.
In light of the above, petition is disposed off.
Sd/- JUDGE