Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2015 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1248/2015 (T-IT)
BETWEEN:
M/S T.T.K PRESTIGE LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.135, "BRIGADE TOWERS", 11TH FLOOR, BRIGADE ROAD, BANGALORE-560025. REPRESENTED BY ITS PA HOLDER, SRI. N. RADHAKRISHNAN. ... PETITIONER
(By Sri. DR. R.B KRISHNA, ADV.,)
AND
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 5(1) BANGALORE, 4TH FLOOR, RASTROTHANA BHAVAN, NO.14/3, OPP. RBI, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001. ... RESPONDENT
(By Sri. K.V ARAVIND, ADV.,)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DTD 11.2.14 UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT (ANNX-G) AS ALSO THE ORDER DTD 6.1.2014, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT REJECTING THE OBJECTIONS OF THE PETITIONER, AND PROCEEDING WITH THE REASSESSMENT (ANNX-K)
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
Petitioner, when visited with notice dated 11.02.2014, Annexure-G, of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 12(4), Bangalore, invoking Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, for the assessment year 2009-10, is said to have been supplied the reasons for reopening the case by communication, dated 06.06.2014, Annexure-H, following which petitioner filed its objections, by way of a letter, dated 12.06.2014, Annexure-J, whereafterwards, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 5(1)(1),
Bangalore, by communication dated 06.01.2015, Annexure-K, rejected the objection. Hence this petition.
Dr.R.B.Krishna, learned counsel for petitioner, is correct in his submission that the communication dated 06.01.2015, Annexure-K, is bereft of reasons and is not a speaking order. “The giving of reasons in support of the conclusions by judicial and quasi judicial authorities when exercising initial jurisdiction is essential for various reasons. First it is calculated to prevent unconscious, unfairness or arbitrariness in reaching the conclusions. The very search for reasons will put the authority on the alert and minimize the chances of unconscious infiltration of actual bias or unfairness in conclusion.” This is the observation of the Apex Court in Woolcombers of India Ltd., vs. Woolcombers workers Union and another1.
1 AIR 1973 SC 2758
The communication, Annexure-K, simply states that the objections are rejected, since the licence fee/logo is a “expenditure towards good will”. This, in my considered opinion, is a ‘conclusion’ and not a ‘reason’. In the circumstances, there is a need to interfere with the communication, Annexure-K.
In the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure-K, communication dated 06.01.2015 is quashed and the proceeding remitted for consideration afresh over the petitioner’s objections, Annexure-J and to pass a speaking order, in accordance with law, assigning reasons, after extending an opportunity of hearing to petitioner, within a week from today. Petitioner to appear before the authority on 29.06.2015, at 3.00 pm without further notice.
Sd/- JUDGE
kcm