Partly allowed

Aramanamada Biddappa Krishna v. National Faceless Assessment Centre

Karnataka HC9 Feb 2023WP/2340/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed ex parte assessment orders and consequential demands under the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the year 2013-14. The court found the petitioner was denied effective opportunity due to a discrepancy between the registered email address on the portal and the address used in notices. Proceedings were restored for reconsideration.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the assessment order dated 31.03.2022, Computation Sheet, Notice of demand, penalty/order under Sections 271(1)(c)/271F, Section 148 notice, and the assessment proceedings were restored for re

Aramanamada Biddappa Krishna Vs National Faceless Assessment… — Income Tax | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - WP No. 2340 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2340 OF 2023 (T-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

ARAMANAMADA BIDDAPPA KRISHNA S/O SRI. LATE A C BIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT 70 DEVANOOR VIRAJPET, KODAGU 571 219 PAN ASOPK6446N (SENIOR CITIZENSHIP NOT CLAIMED)

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. ANNAMALAI S.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

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

¶11

AND:

¶12

NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE REP BY ADDITIONAL /JOINT/DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOEM TAX INCOME TAX OFFICER INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ROOM NO. 401, 2nd FLOOR, E RAMP JAWARAHALAL NEHRU STADIUM DELHI 110 003

¶13

2 - WP No. 2340 of 2023

¶14

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD MADIKERI MADIKERI SRIVALLI BUILDING MADIKERI

¶15

MYSURU 571 201

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. E.I.SANMATHI, ADVOCATE)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B OF THE ACT DATED 31/03/2022 BEARING DIN NO. ITBA/AST/S/147/2021-22/1042273401(1) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 BY THE R-1 HEREIN MARKED AS ANNEXURTE-A1; QUASH THE COMPUTATION SHEET DATED 31/03/2022 BEARING DIN AND DOCUMENT NO. ITBA/AST/S/114/202122/1042273537(1) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 201314 ISSUED BY THE R-1 HEREIN MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A2 AND ETC.,

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner has impugned the Assessment Order dated 31.03.2022 under Section 147 read with Section 144 and read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘ the IT Act’) for the assessment year 2013-14 (Annexure-A1) and the consequential Computation Sheet and the Notice of

¶22

¶23

WP No. 2340 of 2023

¶24

demand under Section 156 of the IT Act (AnnexuresA2 and A3) as also the Order under Section 271(1)(c) and 271F of the IT Act and Notice of demand under Section 156 of the IT Act (Annexures-A4 to A7) and the Notice under Section 148 of the IT Act (AnnexureB).

¶25

Though different grounds are urged, Sri. Annamalai S., the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner would confine the grievance to the impugned Assessment Order being an ex parte order without due opportunity to the petitioner, and if the assessment proceedings are restored, the petitioner, because of the different grounds urged would be able to demonstrate that there cannot be an assessment as now framed.

¶26

It is seen from the petition averments that the petitioner has referred to discrepancy in the E-mail address, and Sri. Annamalai S. adverting to these submits that the petitioner’s E-mail contact details,

¶27

4 - WP No. 2340 of 2023

¶28

even as reflected in the E-portal, is ‘ [email protected]’ , but notices have been addressed to ‘ [email protected]’ . The petitioner’s failure to respond to the impugned Notices, Assessment Order, the Notice of demand and the consequential orders, could be because of this error, an assertion which is not seriously contested by Sri. E.I.Sanmathi. In that event, it cannot be said that the petitioner has been extended due opportunity and the petitioner has failed to avail of such opportunity.

¶29

On the limited ground of lack of effective opportunity, the petitioner must succeed with the impugned Order dated 31.03.2022 (Annexure-A1) and the consequential Computation Sheet and Notice of demand (Annexures-A2 and A3) as also the Order (Annexures-A4 to A7) and the Notice (Annexure-B) being quashed and the proceedings restored for reconsideration in accordance with law. It is ordered

¶30

5 - WP No. 2340 of 2023

¶31

accordingly observing that all questions otherwise are kept open for consideration.

¶32

Sd/JUDGE

¶33

Aramanamada Biddappa Krishna v. National Faceless Assessment Centre

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aramanamada Biddappa Krishna v. National Faceless Assessment Centre

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

Sri. Raghavendra N. a. Vs State of Karnataka

Rathnsingh Naik Vs the Director (a and H R)

Sri M S Shadakashari Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Shawar Pasha Vs the Superintendent

Primary Agricultural Credit Co. Operative Society Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)

Byndoor Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Sangha Niyamitha Vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)