Partly allowed

Vasanth Shrikrishnarao Rao v. the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax

Karnataka HC16 Dec 2021WP/1321/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka held that the petitioner was denied a reasonable opportunity to produce documents and file objections before the assessment order was passed. The Court quashed the order for the assessment year 2012-13 and remanded the matter for re-hearing after granting the petitioner another opportunity to file objections and produce documents.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the assessment order for the assessment year 2012-13 and remanding the matter for re-consideration after granting the petitioner another opportunity to file objections and produce document

Vasanth Shrikrishnarao Rao Vs the Principal Commissioner of… — Income Tax | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.1321 OF 2019 C/W WRIT PETITION NO.56238 OF 2018 (T-IT)

¶7

IN WP NO.1321 OF 2019 BETWEEN:

¶8

VASANTH SHRIKRISHNARAO RAO S/O SRI. SHRIKRISHNA RAO AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS C/1/11 M/S PHARMA FOOD INDUSTRIAL ESTATE HEGDE ROAD, KUMTA -581 343

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. G. VENKATESH AND LAVA.M, ADVOCATES)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1^ST FLOOR, C.R. BUILDING NANDIGUDDA ROAD, ATTAVARA MANGALURU-575 001

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, UDUPI AAYKAR BHAVAN, UDUPI MALPE ROAD, AADIUDUPI AMBALAPADI (PO), UDUPI -576 103

¶14

… RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.12.2018 PASSED U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 OF THE INCOME-TAX

¶17

¶18

ACT, 1961 BY THE R-2 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 ENCLOSED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A1 AS VOID AB INITIO AND BAD IN LAW AND ETC.

¶19

*********

¶20

IN WP NO.56238 OF 2018: BETWEEN:

¶21

VASANTH SHRIKRISHNARAO RAO S/O SRIKRISHNARAO AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS C/1/11M/S, PHARMA FOOD INDUSTRIAL ESTATE HEGDE ROAD, KUMTA-581 343

¶22

...PETITIONER

¶23

(BY SRI. G. VENKATESH AND SRI.LAVA.M, ADVOCATES)

¶24

AND:

¶25

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 1^ST FLOOR C.R. BUILDING, NANDIGUDDA ROAD ATTAVARA, MANGALURU-575 001

¶26

THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1, UDUPI AAYKAR BHAVAN, UDUPI MALPE ROAD, AADIUDUPI AMBALAPADI (PO) UDUPI -576 103

¶27

… RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE)

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT BY THE R-2 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 ENCLOSED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A1 DATED 28.3.2018 AS ONE WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND ETC.

¶30

*********

¶31

THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶32

¶33

ORDER

¶34

1. In W.P.No.1321/2019, the petitioner has

¶35

sought for quashing of the impugned assessment orders at Annexures-A1 to A3 for the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 and consequential demand notices at Annexures-B1 to B3 dated 30.12.2018 and for other reliefs.

¶36

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶37

and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶38

In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the documents produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the present petition is in relation to three assessment years viz., 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15, the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent in relation to assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 have been settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020 and the claim of the petitioner in the present petition is restricted only in respect of the impugned assessment

¶39

¶40

order at Annexure-A1 and impugned demand notice at Annexure-B1 for the assessment year 2012-13. It is submitted that the impugned assessment order dated 30.12.2018 has been passed without providing reasonable and sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his objections and documents and as such, it is necessary that an opportunity be granted in favour of the petitioner to produce documents and file objections and the respondents be directed to reconsider the matter afresh in accordance with law. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one more opportunity may be granted to the petitioner to file additional objections and to produce additional documents.

¶41

4. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent

¶42

submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶43

5. Though several contentions have been urged

¶44

by the petitioner in support of his claim, in view of the specific assertion on the part of the petitioner that he did not produce all the relevant material before the Assessing

¶45

¶46

Officer, particularly in view of the pendency of W.P.No.56238/2018, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner and in order to give one more opportunity to the petitioner to file his objections/additional objections and to produce documents/additional documents in support of his claim, I deem it just and proper to set aside the impugned assessment order at Annexure-A1 for the assessment year 2012-13 and consequential demand notice dated 30.12.2018 at Annexure-B1 and remitted the matter back to the respondents for reconsideration afresh only in relation to the assessment year 2012-13.

¶47

In the result, W.P.No.1321/2019 is partly allowed. The impugned assessment order at Annexure-A1 and consequential demand notice dated 30.12.2018 at Annexure-B1 are hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the respondent No.1 for re-consideration afresh in accordance with law in relation to the assessment year 2012-13 after providing another opportunity to the petitioner

¶48

¶49

to file objections/additional objections and submit

¶50

documents/additional documents.

¶51

In view of disposal of W.P.No.1321/2019,

¶52

W.P.No.56238/2018 does not survive for consideration and

¶53

the same is accordingly disposed of.

¶54

Sd/- JUDGE

¶55

Prs*

Vasanth Shrikrishnarao Rao v. the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vasanth Shrikrishnarao Rao v. the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax

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

The Management of M/S Veer-O-Metals Pvt. Ltd., Vs the Secretary

Vijayanagara Institute of Medical Sciences Vs Assessing Officer

Marvell India Private Limited Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi

Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited Vs the Recovery Officer (Central Circle)

Katerra India Private Limited Vs Assistant Director of Income-Tax

Smt. S Lavanya Sridhar Vs the State of Karnataka