R.S. SHEKARAPPA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP/24664/2012HC KarnatakaKAHC01030667201202 January 2013Bench: H.G.RAMESH3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The tribunal held that the penalty order was violative of the principles of natural justice as it was passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The order was set aside and the matter was remitted for reconsideration.

What were the facts?

The petitioner challenged a penalty order passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner had requested to keep the penalty proceedings in abeyance pending an appeal against the assessment order for the same assessment year.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice due to lack of opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

W.P.No.24664/2012 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JANUARY 2013

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.G. RAMESH

W.P.No.24664/2012 (T-IT)

BETWEEN:

R.S. SHEKARAPPA S/O. RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS NO.475, KENCHAMBA TOWER COLLEGE ROAD NITTUVALLI NEW EXTENSION DAVANAGERE.

... PETITIONER

(BY SRI R RAMA MURTHY, ADVOCATE & SRI KASHINATH KALMATH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 PARK VIEW BUILDING P J EXTENSION DAVANAGERE

... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI K V ARAVIND, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF PENALTY LEVYING PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT DTD.22.6.12 VIDE ANNEX-D.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B-GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

W.P.No.24664/2012 -2- O R D E R

H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral):

In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 22.06.2012 (Annexure-D) passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Davanagere, imposing a penalty of Rs.17,38,000/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2.

I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.

3.

The sole contention urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order was not preceded by any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and therefore, the impugned order is vitiated. Learned Counsel in support of his contention referred to the letter dated 11.06.2012 (Annexure-C) addressed to the respondent praying for keeping the penalty proceedings in abeyance till the disposal of the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of

W.P.No.24664/2012 -3- assessment relating to the assessment year 2009-10. It is relevant to state that the penalty proceeding also relates to the assessment year 2009-10.

4.

If the respondent was not inclined to keep the penalty proceedings in abeyance, he ought to have informed the petitioner. Having not done so, in my opinion, the order is violative of the principles of natural justice.

5.

In view of the above, I make the following order: The impugned order dated 22.06.2012 (Annexure-D) is set aside. The matter is remitted to the respondent for re-consideration in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Petition allowed.

Sd/-

JUDGE PL/ata.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →