Allowed

Darshan Pathak v. Income Tax Officer

Karnataka HC8 Sept 2021WP/12016/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for assessment year 2012-13. The court set aside the notices and proceedings as being without jurisdiction, citing the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2021, which amended Section 9 of the Income Tax Act.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notice dated 31.03.2019 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act and all consequential proceedings are set aside.

Darshan Pathak Vs Income Tax Officer — Income Tax | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.12016/2021 (T-IT) C/W WRIT PETITION NOS.12031/2021, 13522/2021, 13525/2021, 14014/2021, 14081/2021, 14086/2021 & 14094/2021

¶7

IN W.P.NO.12016/2021

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

DARSHAN PATHAK AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 229, ACADEMY STREET, 304, JERSEY CITY NJ 07306 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY SHAREHOLDER REPRESENTATIVE SERVICES LLC BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. CHRISTOPHER LETANG …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PERCY PARDIWALA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VIKRAM UNNI RAJA GOPAL, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

INCOME TAX OFFICER INTERNATIONAL TAX WARD 2(1) BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD 6^TH BLOCK, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE

¶12

¶13

KORAMANGALA BENGALURU - 560 095

¶14

...RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. K.V. ARVIND, ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SRI. M. DILIP, ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 31.03.2019 ANNEXURE-A ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, BY THE RESPONDENT FOR A.Y. 2012-13 AND ETC.

¶17

IN W.P.NO.12031/2021

¶18

BETWEEN:

¶19

SANJAY RAJA RAO AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 278 MAIN STREET APARTMENT A1 LITTLE FERRY NJ 07643 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY SHAREHOLDER REPRESENTATIVE SERVICES LLC BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. CHRISTOPHER LETANG

¶20

…PETITIONER

¶21

(BY SRI. PERCY PARDIWALA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VIKRAM UNNI RAJA GOPAL, ADVOCATE)

¶22

AND:

¶23

INCOME TAX OFFICER INTERNATIONAL TAX WARD 2(1) BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD 6^TH BLOCK, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE

¶24

¶25

KORAMANGALA BENGALURU - 560 095

¶26

...RESPONDENT

¶27

(BY SRI. K.V. ARVIND, ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SRI. M. DILIP, ADVOCATE)

¶28

¶29

IN W.P.NO.13522/2021

¶30

BETWEEN:

¶31

RAKESH PARDIWALA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS NO.444, MADISON AVENUE, 310, NEW YORK 10022 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY SHAREHOLDER REPRESENTATIVE SERVICES LLC BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. CHRISTOPHER LETANG

¶32

…PETITIONER

¶33

(BY SRI. PERCY PARDIWALA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VIKRAM UNNI RAJA GOPAL, ADVOCATE)

¶34

AND:

¶35

INCOME TAX OFFICER INTERNATIONAL TAX WARD 2(1) BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD 6^TH BLOCK, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE KORAMANGALA BENGALURU - 560 095

¶36

¶37

...RESPONDENT

¶38

(BY SRI. K.V. ARVIND, ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SRI. M. DILIP, ADVOCATE)

¶39

¶40

IN W.P.NO.13525/2021

¶41

BETWEEN:

¶42

TURNER PAUL AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESIDING IN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY SHAREHOLDER REPRESENTATIVE SERVICES LLC BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. CHRISTOPHER LETANG

¶43

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. PERCY PARDIWALA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VIKRAM UNNI RAJA GOPAL, ADVOCATE)

¶44

AND:

¶45

INCOME TAX OFFICER INTERNATIONAL TAX WARD 2(1) BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD 6^TH BLOCK, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE KORAMANGALA BENGALURU - 560 095

¶46

...RESPONDENT

¶47

(BY SRI. K.V. ARVIND, ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SRI. M. DILIP, ADVOCATE)

¶48

¶49

¶50

IN W.P.NO.14014/2021

¶51

BETWEEN:

¶52

SARAT SETHI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 777, 3^RD AVENUE 38^TH FLOOR, NEW YORK NY 10017 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY SHAREHOLDER REPRESENTATIVE SERVICES LLC BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. CHRISTOPHER LETANG AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

¶53

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. PERCY PARDIWALA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VIKRAM UNNI RAJA GOPAL, ADVOCATE)

¶54

AND:

¶55

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ASMNT CIR 2(1) BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD 6^TH BLOCK, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE KORAMANGALA BENGALURU - 560 095

¶56

...RESPONDENT

¶57

(BY SRI. K.V. ARVIND, ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SRI. M. DILIP, ADVOCATE)

¶58

¶59

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 28.03.2019 BEING ANNEXURE-A ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, BY THE RESPONDENT FOR A.Y. 2012-13 AND ETC.

¶60

IN W.P.NO.14081/2021

¶61

BETWEEN:

¶62

MARK BREZETTE AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 1413, SALADO DRIVE ALLEN TX UNITED STATES OF AMERICA REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY SHAREHOLDER REPRESENTATIVE SERVICES LLC BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. CHRISTOPHER LETANG AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. (BY SRI. PERCY PARDIWALA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VIKRAM UNNI RAJA GOPAL, ADVOCATE)

¶63

…PETITIONER

¶64

AND:

¶65

INCOME TAX OFFICER INTERNATIONAL TAX WARD 1(1) BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD 6^TH BLOCK, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE KORAMANGALA BENGALURU - 560 095 ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K.V. ARVIND, ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SRI. M. DILIP, ADVOCATE)

¶66

¶67

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 30.09.2019 ANNEXURE-A ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, BY THE RESPONDENT FOR A.Y. 2012-13 AND ETC.

¶68

IN W.P.NO.14086/2021

¶69

BETWEEN:

¶70

RANT KISHINCHAND KIRPALANI TRUST C/O ANDREW KIRPALANI 1410 BROADWAY, 2^ND FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10018 AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY SHAREHOLDER REPRESENTATIVE SERVICES LLC BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. CHRISTOPHER LETANG

¶71

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. PERCY PARDIWALA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VIKRAM UNNI RAJA GOPAL, ADVOCATE)

¶72

AND:

¶73

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ASMNT CIR 2(1) BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD 6^TH BLOCK, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE KORAMANGALA BENGALURU - 560 095

¶74

...RESPONDENT

¶75

(BY SRI. K.V. ARVIND, ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SRI. M. DILIP, ADVOCATE)

¶76

¶77

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 28.03.2019 ANNEXURE-A ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, BY THE RESPONDENT FOR A.Y. 2012-13 AND ETC.

¶78

IN W.P.NO.14094/2021

¶79

BETWEEN:

¶80

ALAN BATES AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 1, DELAWARE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY SHAREHOLDER REPRESENTATIVE SERVICES LLC BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. CHRISTOPHER LETANG AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

¶81

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. PERCY PARDIWALA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VIKRAM UNNI RAJA GOPAL, ADVOCATE)

¶82

AND:

¶83

INCOME TAX OFFICER INTERNATIONAL TAX WARD 1(1) BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD 6^TH BLOCK, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE KORAMANGALA BENGALURU - 560 095

¶84

...RESPONDENT

¶85

(BY SRI. K.V. ARVIND, ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SRI. M. DILIP, ADVOCATE)

¶86

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO

¶87

¶88

SET ASIDE AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 30.09.2019 ANNEXURE-A ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, BY THE RESPONDENT FOR A.Y. 2012-13 AND ETC.

¶89

THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶90

O R D E R

¶91

The petitioners have sought for quashing of the impugned Notice dated 31.03.2019 at Annexure- A issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the respondent for the Assessment Year 2012-13 and have also sought for quashing of the impugned Order dated 10.12.2020 at Annexure- B.

¶92

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the basis of initiation of proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act now no longer survives in light of the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2021 whereby amendments have been effected to Section 9 of the income Tax Act and in particular to explanation 5.

¶93

¶94

It is submitted that by virtue of the Amendment

¶95

Act, it is clarified that nothing in explanation 5 shall apply to the proceedings inter alia Section 147. Accordingly, it is submitted that notice at Annexure- A is one without jurisdiction and consequently, proceedings pursuant thereto are required to be set aside.

¶96

Upon notice, learned counsel for the respondents

¶97

filed a memo which reads as here under;

¶98

"The petitioner in the above matter has challenged the reopening of assessment under Section 148 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2012.-13. During the course of hearing the assessee contended that in view of Amendment to Section 9 of the Act by Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act 2021 dated 30/08/2021, the transaction being prior to 28/5/2012, the reopening of assessment is not sustainable. The contention of the assessee has been examined and the said contention is correct.

¶99

Wherefore it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass

¶100

¶101

appropriate orders in the interest of justice and equity."

¶102

In light of the same, notice at Annexure- A is set

¶103

aside as one being without jurisdiction in light of the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2021 effecting

¶104

amendment to Section 9 of the Income Tax Act and all the consequential proceedings pursuant to Annexure- A are set aside.

¶105

Accordingly, petitions are disposed of.

¶106

Sd/-

¶107

JUDGE

¶108

Darshan Pathak v. Income Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Darshan Pathak v. Income Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Suriyanarayanan P S Vs M/S Skyline Constructions

Sonia George Hunt Vs Moses Praveen J

Mrs. Smitha Nagesh Vs Mr. Nikhil P

Mananje Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Sangha Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)

M/S Adarsha Control and Automation Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India

Sanjay Raja Rao Vs Income Tax Officer