Allowed

Hanuman Motors Private Limited v. Union of India

Karnataka HC23 Dec 2021WP/23055/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition filed by Hanuman Motors Private Limited. The Court quashed the assessment order, computation sheet, and notice of demand under Section 144(144(2)), and Sections 156(156(2)), Income Tax Act, 1961. The matter was remanded to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh proceedings after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.

What did the court decide?

The petition is allowed. The impugned assessment order, computation sheet, and notice of demand are set aside. The matter is remitted for reconsideration after giving the petitioner an opportunity to

Hanuman Motors Private Limited Vs Union of India — Income Tax | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¹

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.23055 OF 2021 (T-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

HANUMAN MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED HAVING OFFICE AT 5-2-99 P.B. NO. 27, VEERA HANUMAN MARG CHITPADY, HANUMAN TRANSPORT COMPANY UDUPI 576 101 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. PANGALA GOPALA KRISHNA NAYAK

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI ANISH ACHARYA, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES NORH BLOCK NEW DELHI 110 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶11

ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL E ASSESSMENT CENTRE DELHI-110 001

¶12

…RESPONDENTS

¶13

(BY SRI MALLAHAR RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶14

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 30.04.2021 U/S 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶15

²

¶16

THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶17

ORDER

¶18

In this petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:

¶19

a) Issue a Writ of certiorari quashing Assessment order passed by the Respondent dated 30.04.2021 bearing DIN No. ITBA/AST/S/144/2021-22/1032743129(1) Under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, at Annexure-A.

¶20

b) Consequently issue a writ of certiorari or appropriate order quashing computation sheet bearing No.ITBA/AST/S/186/202122/1032743148 (1) and also notice of demand dated 30.04.2021 bearing No.ITBA/AST/S/156/ 2021-22/1032743137(1) u/s 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 issued by the Respondent at Annexure B and C.

¶21

c) Grant such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

¶22

Heard learned counsel for respondent No.1,

¶23

respondent No.2 and perused the material on record.

¶24

³

¶25

In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the documents produced by the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner specifically contended that the petitioner due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, could not submit his reply to the notices issued by the respondents. It is submitted that the petitioner has a prima facie good case to urge before the Assessing Authority and the balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioner, who has custody and possession of sufficient documents and material in support of his claim. It is therefore submitted that if an opportunity is granted in favour of the petitioner to submit his objections and documents and material in support of his claim, the petitioner would do so and the respondents are to be directed to consider the same and pass appropriate order on merits after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner in this regard.

¶26

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that despite sufficient opportunity being granted to the

¶27

⁴

¶28

petitioner, the petitioner did not submit either objections or documents or any material and consequently, the respondents were left with no option but to pass the impugned order, which does not warrant any interference.

¶29

A perusal of the impugned assessment order at Annexure-A will indicate that the respondent has proceeded to pass the impugned order without the petitioner participating in the assessment proceedings. However, in view of the specific assertion on the part of the petitioner that he could not participate in the assessment proceedings and file his objections as well as produce documents and materials in support of his claim, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the claim of the petitioner and in the interest of justice and to give one more opportunity to the petitioner, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned assessment order and remit the matter back to respondent No.1 for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to file objections/reply and produce documents/materials in support of his claim.

¶30

⁵

¶31

6. In the result, I pass the following:

¶32

ORDER

¶33

(i) The petition is hereby allowed .

¶34

(ii) The impugned Assessment Order at Annexure-A bearing No.ITBA/AST/S/144/2021-22/1032743129(1) dated 30.04.2021, computation sheet bearing No.ITBA/AST/S/186/2021-22/1032743148(1) dated 30.04.2021 and also notice of demand bearing No.ITBA/AST/S/156/2021-22/1032743137(1) dated 30.04.2021 are hereby set aside.

¶35

(iii) The matter is remitted back to respondent No2. for reconsideration afresh after giving sufficient opportunity to submit his objections and produce documents/material in support of his claim.

¶36

(iv) All rival contentions are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.

¶37

SD/-

¶38

JUDGE

¶39

Bmc

Hanuman Motors Private Limited v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanuman Motors Private Limited v. Union of India

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

Alten Calsoft Labs (India) Pvt.Ltd Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri Nagendra K Vs the Managing Director

Sri D Ramu Vs the Chief General Manager

M/S Kirloskar Brothers Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Wellnest India Projects Private Limited Vs Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Mohammed Nasser Vs Joint Commissioner of Customs