Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2016
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL AND THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA WRIT APPEAL NO.4551/2015 (T-IT) C/W WRIT APPEAL NO.4552/2015 (T-IT) AND WRIT APPEAL NOS.4553-4554/2015 (T-IT)
IN W.A. NO.4551/2015
BETWEEN:
SHRI B R RAMARAJU AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, SON OF SRI.B.C.RAJASHEKAR NO.40/1, KHAZI STREET MOHAMMADAN BLOCK BASAVANGUDI, BANGALORE-560 004.
...APPELLANT
(BY MS.JINITHA CHATTERJEE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.S.PARTHASARATHI, ADVOCATE)
2 AND
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, QUEEN'S ROAD BANGALORE-560 001.
THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (OSD) CENTRAL RANGE BANGALORE-560 001.
...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.V.ARAVIND, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.6467/2015 DATED 10/09/2015.
IN W.A. NO.4552/2015:
BETWEEN:
SHRI B R ANJAN KUMAR AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, SON OF LATE B.C.RAJASHEKAR NO. 40/1, KHAZI STREET MOHAMMADAN BLOCK, BASAVANGUDI, BANGALORE - 560 004.
...APPELLANT (BY MS.JINITHA CHATTERJEE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.S.PARTHASARATHI, ADVOCATE)
3 AND:
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, QUEEN'S ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001.
THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (OSD) CENTRAL RANGE BANGALORE - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.V.ARAVIND, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 6469/2015 DATED 10/09/2015.
IN W.A.NOS.4553-4554/2015: BETWEEN: SMT.KAMALA RAJSHEKAR (DECD) REPRESENTED BY THE LEGAL HEIR, SRI.B.R.ANJAN KUMAR AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, SON OF LATE B.C.RAJASHEKAR, NO.71, KHAZI STREET, MOHAMMADAN BLOCK, BASAVANGUDI, BANGALORE-560 004 ...APPELLANT (BY MS.JINITHA CHATTERJEE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.S.PARTHASARATHI, ADVOCATE)
4 AND:
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,
CENTRAL CIRCLE,
QUEEN'S ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001
THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
(OSD)
CENTRAL RANGE,
BANGALORE-560 001 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.V.ARAVIND, ADVOCATE)
THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 6470 & 26074/2015 DATED 10/09/2015
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HERING THIS DAY, JAYANT PATEL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
As in all these appeals common questions of law arise for consideration, they are being considered simultaneously.
Writ Appeal No.4551/2015 is directed against order dated 10.09.2015 passed by the learned Single
5 Judge in W.P.No.6467/2015 whereas W.A.Nos.4553- 4554/2015 are directed against the very order passed by the learned Single Judge insofar as it relates to W.P.Nos.6470/2015 and 26074/2015.
With the consent of learned Advocates appearing on both the sides, we have taken up W.A.No.4552/2015 listed in orders, though it is notified for non-compliance of office objections. Since the issue involved in the present writ appeals is inter connected and the writ appeal itself has arisen from the common order passed by the learned Single Judge, they are heard together.
W.A.No.4552/2015 has been preferred against the common order passed by the learned Single Judge insofar as it relates to W.P.No.6469/2015.
6 5. It may be recorded that in all the appeals, the learned Single Judge having found that learned Counsel for the petitioners was unable to point out any relevant material constituting legal evidence for the claim of expenditure incurred by the appellants-petitioners, the learned Single Judge did not interfere with the finding of the authorities and the petitions were rejected.
We have heard Ms.Jinitha Chatterjee, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants in all the appeals and Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned Counsel for the respondents in all the appeals upon the advance copy.
The contention raised on behalf of the appellants is that as the Assessing Officer did not grant sufficient time to the appellants to produce the documentary evidence as a result, the appellants could not produce the requisite document as a proof of payment for the expenses incurred and hence the
7 orders of assessment are in breach of principles of natural justice.
It is submitted that the appellants did approach the revisional authority but unfortunately the revisional authority instead of remanding the matter, has confirmed the order and dismissed the revision. In the writ petitions before the learned Single Judge, the aspect of non-observance of the principles of natural justice have not been properly considered and hence this Court may consider that aspect in the present appeals.
It was submitted that if one more opportunity is given to the appellants, the appellants may be in a position to produce the confirmation letter of the persons who have received money but the appellants are not having any voucher for payment nor having any address of the persons who have received the money.
8 10. It was submitted that since the matter has proceeded without giving sufficient opportunity before the Assessing Officer, the assessment order as well as the order of the revisional authority be set aside and the matter may be restored to the Assessment Officer for re- examination and this Court may interfere in the matter.
As such, if the order of the revisional authority is considered, it appears from the record that at three different occasions, opportunity was given to the petitioner-appellants to submit the documents. However, the petitioner-appellants did not avail of the same. In the order of the revisional authority at paragraph-4.6, it has also been recorded that the matter was posted before the Assessing Officer on 03.09.2013, 06.09.2013 and 10.03.2014. If the aforesaid time gap is considered, it cannot be said that sufficient opportunity was not given by the Assessing Officer.
9 12. Apart from the above, if the petitioners- appellants could not avail the opportunity, they could have very well produced the document of voucher as a proof of payment before the revisional authority when the grievance was made before the revisional authority to the effect that the Assessing Officer did not give sufficient opportunity. But the petitioner-appellant did not produce any document before revisional authority.
On the contrary, before the Assessing Officer, the petitioners-appellants in the letter dated 15.01.2014 have stated thus at paragraph-1:
“1. In my letter filed on 17.11.2011, I have bought this notice to your goodself that vouchers for brokerage that, I have not able to produce any vouchers since I have renovated my house during the year 2010- 11. However, I have paid Rs.1,00,000/-. This has been paid to three brokers wherein at this point of time I am not in
10 position to bring their address and vouchers.”
Further at para-2 and 3 it was stated as under:
“2.For the eviction charges paid I have submitted the letter/confirmation by the illegal occupants. They do not have any permanent address and PAN numbers. I have made all the payment by cash only.
Improvement made during the year 1991- 92, amounting to Rs.1,50,000/- towards improvement has been spent almost for last 30 years. The documents/proof are not available since my house is renovated.”
The aforesaid shows that even as per the petitioner-appellants, there was neither any proof of payment in terms of the voucher for the expenditure claimed as deduction nor such documents were produced at any point of time before the revisional
11 authority. When the matter was heard before the learned Single Judge in writ proceedings, such documents were not produced nor are they produced in the present appeals.
Under these circumstances, when proper legal evidence regarding proof of expenditure was not produced either before the Assessing Officer nor at subsequent stages of the revision petition or writ petitions before the learned Single Judge nor in the present appeals, we do not find that there would be any prejudice caused to the appellant on the alleged ground of breach of principles of natural justice nor any useful purpose would be served in remanding the matter as sought to be canvassed. The aforesaid in any case is coupled with the aspect that reasonable opportunity was given before the Assessing Officer but the petitioner-appellants did not avail of the same by
12 producing the requisite voucher for the expenditure claimed. 15. In view of the above, it cannot be said that the learned Single Judge committed an error in not interfering with the matter when no legal evidence was produced for expenditure claimed. Hence, we do not find any case is made out for interference in these appeals.
Under the circumstances, all the appeals are dismissed. In view of the disposal of the appeals, office objections raised in W.A.No.4552/2015 would not survive for compliance.
Sd/- JUDGE
Sd/- JUDGE JT/-