SRI M RAMAMURTHY vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV

WP 3859/2012 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2012 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL W.P.No.3859/2012 (T-IT) BETWEEN: Sri M.Ramamurthy, S/o Muniveeranna, aged 41 years, r/at Dwarakanagar, Near Bus Stand, Jagga Building, I.A.F. Post, Bangalore-65. … PETITIONER (By Sri Malhara Rao, Adv.) AND: 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV, C.R.Buildings, Queens Road, Bangalore-01. 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(4), 14/2, 4th Floor, Rashtrothana Bhavan, Nrupathunga Road, Bangalore-01. … RESPONDENTS (By Sri Sanmathi Indrakumar,Adv.) This writ petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India quash the order dated 30.12.2011 passed by the respondent No.2 notices dated 30.12.2011 issued by the respondent No.2 vide Annexure-B, C & D respectively and etc.

WP 3859/2012 2 This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing-B group this day, the Court made the following: ORDER 1. In this writ petition, petitioner is challenging Annexure- B- Assessment Order dated 30.12.2011 passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(4), Bangalore. 2. By the said order, the Income Tax Officer has made best judgment assessment and has passed the impugned order holding that the total income of the petitioner for the assessment year 2009-10 was Rs.17,02,090/-. 3. The main contention urged by the petitioner is, that the impugned order is passed without affording any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, in as much as, no notice was duly served on the petitioner by the Assessing Officer. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the parties have addressed their arguments and have taken me through the materials placed on record. 5. Counsel for the respondent submits that notice has been served on one Smt.D.Sudha on as many as four occasions in the address furnished by the petitioner while

WP 3859/2012 3 submitting the returns. He therefore contends that there is no violation of the principles of natural justice. He also contends that since the impugned order is an appealable order, petitioner ought to have availed the remedy of filing an appeal under the statute. 6. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on careful perusal of the impugned order, I find that except recording in the tabular form, the date of issue of notice and the word 'served', nothing is forthcoming from the impugned order as to whether notice was served on the petitioner. In fact, as contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent, notice has been served on all the four occasions on one Smt.D.Sudha. It cannot be disputed that the notice under Section 143(2) is required to be served on the assessee, so that he will have an opportunity to produce necessary documents and lead evidence as provided under Section 143(3), whereupon the Assessing Officer will consider the same and pass appropriate orders. 7. In the instant case, admittedly notice is not served on the petitioner. It is also not forthcoming from the materials on record, nor the Counsel for the respondent is in a position

WP 3859/2012 4 to state what is the relationship of the said Smt.D.Sudha, on whom the notice is allegedly served with the petitioner. In such circumstances, it has to be held that there was no notice to the petitioner and the petitioner had no opportunity to appear before the Assessing Officer and produce necessary materials in support of his case. Therefore, there is total violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, the matter requires re-consideration. 8. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed. The assessee is directed to appear before the Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(4), Bangalore, on 14.6.2012 at 3.00 p.m. along with necessary documents. The Assessing Officer is directed to consider the objections to be filed, provide a fair and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and then pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Sd/- JUDGE KK