Allowed

Edgeverve Systems Limited v. Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner

Karnataka HC12 Aug 2022WP/8652/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition challenging a penalty order and demand notice issued under the Income Tax Act. The Court quashed the orders because they were passed on the erroneous premise that a pending appeal had been dismissed, directing authorities to keep penalty proceedings in abeyance until the appeal's disposal.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the impugned penalty order dated 29.03.2022 and the impugned demand notice dated 29.03.2022; direction to keep penalty proceedings in abeyance till the disposal of the pending appeal.

Edgeverve Systems Limited Vs Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant… — Income Tax | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¹

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.8652 OF 2022 (T-IT)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED PLOT NO.44, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, ELECTRONICS CITY, BANGALORE-560 100. REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, MR P PRAKASH.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI.T. SOORYANARAYANA., SR.COUNSEL FOR SRI. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

1 . ADDITONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME-TAX OFFICER

¶11

NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESMENT CENTRE, ROOM NO.401,2^ND FLOOR, E- RAMP,

¶12

JAWAHARLAL NEHRY STADIUM,

¶13

DELHI-110003.

¶14

2 . ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RANGE-2,BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD,6^TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA,

¶15

BENGALURU-560095.

¶16

3 . ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1)(1), BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6^TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA,

¶17

BENGALURU-560095

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

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

¶20

²

¶21

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED: 29.03.2022 ANNEXURE-J PASSED BY THE R-1 UNDER SECTION 271(1) (C) OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17 AND ETC.

¶22

THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶23

ORDER

¶24

In this petition, the petitioner has sought for the

¶25

following reliefs:

¶26

a) Quashing the order dated 29.03.2022 (Annexure-J) bearing DIN ITBA/PNL/F/271(1)(c) /202122/1041995337(1) passed by the 1^st Respondent under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the Assessment year 2016-17;

¶27

b) Quashing the demand notice dated 29.03.2022 (Annexure-K) bearing DIN ITBA/PNL/S/156/ 2021-22/1041992914(1) issued by the 1^st Respondent under Section 156 of the Act for the assessment year 2016-17.

¶28

c) Directing the Respondents to keep the penalty proceedings initiated vide notice bearing DIN No.ITBA/PNL/S/271(1)(c)/2019-20/10230355 47(1) dated 24.12.2019 under Sections 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act (Annexure-B), in abeyance, until disposal of the Petitioner’s appeal against the assessment order dated 24.12.2019 by the CIT(A); and

¶29

d) Pass such other or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and

¶30

³

¶31

circumstances of the case, in the interests of justice and equity.

¶32

Heard Sri. T. Sooryanarayana, Senior counsel appearing on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶33

The material on record discloses that aggrieved by the Assessment Order dated 24.12.2019, passed by respondent No.2, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the same is pending adjudication. In the meanwhile, in response to the notice issued by respondent No.2 proposing to levy penalty under Section 274 r/w. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the I.T. Act”), petitioner addressed a communication dated 10.01.2020 requesting the respondents to drop the penalty proceedings or atleast keep the same in abeyance. However, respondent No.1 issued notices dated 23.03.2021 and 07.05.2021 reiterating the demand to levy penalty on the petitioner, to which the petitioner issued replies dated 24.03.2021 and 21.05.2021 reiterating that the appeal was pending before the Appellate Authority and

¶34

⁴

¶35

consequently, the penalty proceedings are to be dropped or kept in abeyance. It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite the aforesaid facts and circumstances, respondent No.1 has proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 29.03.2022 levying penalty upon the petitioner on the erroneous premise/basis that the appeal filed by the petitioner had been disposed of without appreciating that the appeal was still pending adjudication. Subsequently, petitioner has filed rectification application dated 30.03.2022, which is also pending adjudication, despite which the respondents are proceeding to enforce and implement the impugned order and demand notice and as such, petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶36

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶37

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent No.1 has proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 29.03.2022 and imposed penalty

¶38

⁵

¶39

upon the petitioner under Sec.271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act on the erroneous premise/ground that the appeal preferred by the petitioner had been dismissed without appreciating the material on record including the latest status of the appeal, which clearly establishes that the appeal is still pending adjudication as on today and consequently, the impugned order and notice passed/issued by respondent No.1 deserves to be quashed and the same are to be directed to be kept in abeyance till disposal of the appeal.

¶40

In the result, I pass the following:-

¶41

ORDER

¶42

(i) Petition is hereby allowed .

¶43

(ii) The impugned penalty order at Annexure-J dated

¶44

29.03.2022 and the impugned demand notice at AnnexureK dated 29.03.2022 are hereby quashed.

¶45

(iii) The respondents are directed to keep the penalty proceedings in abeyance till the disposal of the appeal preferred by the petitioner before the appellate authority and the same attaining finality in accordance with law.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

Srl/Bmc

Edgeverve Systems Limited v. Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Edgeverve Systems Limited v. Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner

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

Spportzvillage Foundation Vs Angels Education Society

M/S Baddyzone Private Limited Vs Lecaprio

Spiegel Enterprises Private Limited Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S. Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd., Vs the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax

The Sirsi Urban Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs the Commissioner of Income Tax (Tds)

Lenova (India) Private Limted Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax