Allowed

Jakka Srinivasulu Reddy v. the Principal Commissioner of

Karnataka HC17 Feb 2021WP/17195/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Writ Bench quashed an impugned order of the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) and the consequent notice of demand for failing to afford the petitioner an adequate opportunity of hearing, as the notice was received too late to participate in proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order and the demand notice were set aside, and the respondent was directed to re-do the proceedings after affording the petitioner an opportunity to appear.

Jakka Srinivasulu Reddy Vs the Principal Commissioner of — Income Tax | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.17195/2018 (T-IT)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

Jakka Srinivasulu Reddy, Aged about 74 years, No.318, Sri Soudha, 100 Feet Road, Indiranagar, Bangalore - 560 038. … Petitioner

¶8

(By Sri M. Lava, Advocate)

¶9

AND :

¶10

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4, BMTC Depot Building, 80 Feet Road, Koramangala, Bengaluru - 560 095.

¶11

The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Circle 4(1)(1), Room No.229, 2^nd Floor, BMTC Depot Building, 80 Feet Road, Koramangala, Bengaluru - 560 095. … Respondents

¶12

(By Sri Dilip, Advocate for Sri K.V. Aravind, Advocate)

¶13

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned order giving effect to the order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) under the Income-Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2012-13 dated 30.03.2018 vide Annexure-A passed by the R-2 without affording adequate opportunity of representation and being heard to the petitioner and etc.

¶14

¶15

This Writ Petition coming on for orders this day, the Court, made the following:

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of certiorari

¶18

to quash the impugned order at Annexure-A dated 30.03.2018 passed in OGE/AFKPS0888K/A.Y.201213/JCIT(OSD)/C-4(1)(1)/17-18. Consequential relief is

¶19

sought for to set aside the notice of demand under Section 156 of the Income Tax Act in Form No.7 dated 30.03.2018 produced at Annexure-B issued by respondent No.2 consequent to the order at Annexure-A.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order at Annexure-A is passed in violation of the natural justice insofar as for the purpose of quantification of deemed dividend pursuant to the order in appeal, the Assessing authority was to quantify such demand and in that context, notice came to be issued at Annexure-F calling upon the petitioner to be present on 28.03.2018 at 11.55 a.m. It is submitted that the said notice was received by the petitioner on 28.03.2018 at

¶21

¶22

11.58 a.m., as per the postal tracking report, copy of which is enclosed at Annexure-G. On the very same day, the petitioner has addressed a communication pointing out to the belated receipt of the notice and had sought for an adjournment in light of non-receipt of legal notice within time. However, proceedings have been concluded and the impugned order has been passed at Annexure-A.

¶23

The assertion of the petitioner on the basis of the material placed on record, i.e., postal tracking report at Annexure-G would clearly require acceptance in light of the notice having been received after the time fixed for appearance on the date fixed.

¶24

Accordingly, the impugned order at Annexure-A is set aside and so also the demand notice at Annexure-B. Respondent No.2 is to redo the proceedings pursuant to the directions of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 30.11.2017 in accordance with law after affording an opportunity to the petitioner to appear before the 3^rd respondent without further notice on 04.03.2021.

¶25

¶26

Subject to above observations, petition is disposed

¶27

off .

¶28

All contentions of the parties are kept open.

¶29

Sd/JUDGE

¶30

Jakka Srinivasulu Reddy v. the Principal Commissioner of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jakka Srinivasulu Reddy v. the Principal Commissioner of

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

Mohammed Iqbal Vs the State of Karnataka

M Swamy Vs State of Karnataka

Shivanna @ K J Shivanna Vs State of Karnataka

Tinton River Palms Vs State of Karnataka

M/S. B.R.Impex Vs Commissioner of Commercial Tax

Mrs Chandra Devi Kothari Vs the Income Tax Officer