MR SHAIK MADAR AMANULLA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4 (3)(3)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE: THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.50620/2019 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

MR. SHAIK MADAR AMANULLA S/O SRI SHAIK MADAR, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS NO.28/3 A-B, CHUNCHANGATTA ROAD, YELECHANAHALLI, J.P.NAGAR POST, KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE 560 078, KARNATAKA. INDIA.

... PETITIONER

[BY SRI SHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI ANNAMALAI S & BHAIRAV KUTTAIAH ADV.]

AND:

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(3) (3) BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD 6TH BLOCK, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU PIN CODE 560 095 KARNATAKA

…RESPONDENT

[BY SRI K .V. ARAVIND & SRI DILIP, ADV. ]

- 2 -

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 139(9) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 BY THE RESPONDENT IN LETTER DATED 24.09.2019 ANNEXURE-A AND TO SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT DATED 27.09.2019 VIDE ORDER AND NOTICE OF DEMAND ISSUED UNDER SECTION 156 OF THE ACT AND CMPUTATION SHEET AS REFERRED AS ANNEXURE-B.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

O R D E R Sri K.V. Aravind, learned counsel is permitted to accept notice for the respondent.

The petitioner has challenged the order passed under Section 139(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961( ‘Act’ for short) as well as Annexure-B passed under Section 144 of the Act dated 27.09.2019 and notice of demand issued under Section 156 of the Act.

The petitioner is an individual assessee. It is submitted that the petitioner filed return of income on 16.09.2019 declaring the total income of Rs.9,67,260/-. However, the respondent has passed a non-speaking

- 3 - order on 24.09.2019 under Section 139(9) of the Act without issuing show-cause notice and treated the return filed by the petitioner as invalid and non-est in law.

Sri A Shankar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that no specific show-cause notice was issued to make best - judgment assessment under Section 144 of the Act, in addition to the non- speaking order passed under Section 139(9) of the Act.

Learned counsel for the revenue justifying the order impugned, would submit that notice under Sub Section(1) of Section 142 was indeed issued as per Annexures-C, D and F . The petitioner has filed reply to the said show cause notices. Considering the reply, the assessment order under Section 144 of the Act has been passed. Hence no interference is warranted.

- 4 -

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, it is ex- facie apparent that no intimation was issued before passing the order under Section 139(9) of the Act. It is needless to observe that issuing of notice/intimation is sine qua non for passing the order under Section 139(9) of the Act. Similarly no show-cause notice was issued under Section 144 of the Act specifically, to pass the best – judgment assessment.

In the circumstances, the orders impugned are hit by the principles of natural justice. Hence, the petitioner shall consider the orders passed under Section 139(9) and 144 of the Act as show cause notices.

The petitioner shall file reply/objections to the said show-cause notices within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

- 5 -

After submission of the objections, respondent-Assessing Officer shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law in an expedite manner. 10. In view of the aforesaid observations, demand notice issued under Section 156 of the Act, part of Annexure-B dated 27.9.2019 is quashed.

With the aforesaid terms, the writ petition stands dismissed.

Sd/- JUDGE

Psg*

MR SHAIK MADAR AMANULLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4 (3)(3)