Partly allowed

Btkoppal Thammaiahppa Shadaksharappa v. the Union of India

Karnataka HC2 Feb 2023WP/1041/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the High Court held that the assessee's bonafides regarding non-receipt of notices were not disputed given his adjournment request. Consequently, the impugned assessment and consequential orders were quashed, and proceedings remanded for reconsideration.

What did the court decide?

The impugned assessment order under Section 144 and consequential orders dated 17.12.2022 were quashed. Proceedings restored to the third respondent to extend opportunity under Section 144.

Btkoppal Thammaiahppa Shadaksharappa Vs the Union of India — Income Tax | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 1041 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 1041 OF 2023 (T-IT)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

BTKOPPAL THAMMAIAHPPA SHADAKSHARAPPA S/O LATE M THAMMAIAHPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/A NO.66, 2^ND CROSS BEHIND VENKATESHWARA TEMPLE VIDYA NAGAR, KADUR CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT KARNATAKA-577548.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. RAJEEV CHANNAPPA NULVI.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by NARASIMHA MURTHY VANAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS JOINT SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT) ROOM NO.46, NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI, DELHI-110001.

¶15

THE ASSESSMENT UNIT/INCOME TAX OFFICER INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT NORTH BLOCK

¶16

¶17

WP No. 1041 of 2023

¶18

NEW DELHI, DELHI-110001.

¶19

THE NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE INCOME TAX OFFICER NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI DELHI-110001.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.MADANAN PILLAI., CGC FOR R1; SRI. DILIP M, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, DVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 144 READ WITH SECTION 144B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 VIDE DIN NO. ITBA/AST/S/144/2022-23/1048068343(1) DATED 17.12.2022 ALONG WITH COMPUTATION SHEET VIDE DIN NO. ITBA/AST/S/330/202223/1048068451(1) DATED 17.12.2022, AND DEMAND NOTICE U/S 156 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 VIDE DIN NO. ITBA/AST/S/156/2022-23/1048068544(1) DATED 17.12.2022, PASSED BY THE R2 AUTHORITY, PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2021-22 VIDE ANNEXURE A, A1 AND A2 RESPECTIVELY.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioner has impugned the assessment

¶26

order under Section 144 read with Section 144 B of the Income Tax Act 1961 (for short, ‘ the IT Act ’). The petitioner’s grievance essentially is premised in the assertion that there is lack of reasonable opportunity.

¶27

¶28

WP No. 1041 of 2023

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that before the impugned order not only notice under Section 144 of the IT Act is issued but also notices under Section 142(1) and 144B of the IT Act are issued as repeated reminders. However, he contends that the petitioner was not in receipt of these notices because these are addressed to the credentials given in his IT portal.

¶30

The learned counsel’s principal argument is that upon receipt of notice under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act through the registered post, a request for adjournment was received on the very same day and without considering this request, the assessment is completed by the impugned order. If the petitioner could avail of the opportunity in terms of the notice issued under Section 144 of the IT Act, the petitioner will be able to demonstrate against assessment as now concluded.

¶31

¶32

WP No. 1041 of 2023

¶33

Sri Dilip M., who appears for Sri K.V.Aravind, the learned counsel on record for the second and the third respondents, submits that the petitioner cannot complain of lack of opportunity because, as is obvious from the petition averments and the submissions, the petitioner has failed to avail opportunity that is extended. However, it remains salient that the petitioner’s request for adjournment on receipt of notice under Section 144 of the IT Act is not considered.

¶34

If the petitioner could not receive any intimation of the earlier notices but on receipt of the notice through speed post has raised a request for adjournment, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner’s bonafide cannot be disputed and concluded that he has failed to avail opportunity. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the assessment order

¶35

[ Annexure - A] and the consequential orders

¶36

¶37

WP No. 1041 of 2023

¶38

[ Annexures-A1 and A2 ] must be quashed, and the proceedings restored to the third respondent for reconsideration after due opportunity to the petitioner. Therefore, the following:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

The petitioner is allowed in part

¶41

quashing the impugned order dated 17.12.2022 [as per Annexure-A] and the consequential orders [ as per AnnexuresA1 and A2 ] calling upon the third respondent to extend opportunity to the petitioner as contemplated under Section 144 of the IT Act.

¶42

SA ct:sr

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

Btkoppal Thammaiahppa Shadaksharappa v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Btkoppal Thammaiahppa Shadaksharappa v. the 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

Dr.Thimmanna Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri B K Varadaraj Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt M Nagarathna Vs State of Karnataka

H.Govindappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sree Nandi Granites Vs Joint Commissioner of GST (Appeals)

M/S Strides Pharma Science Ltd. Vs Union of India