R.S. SHEKARAPPA vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

R.S. SHEKARAPPA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER