Allowed

Deepa Nanakram Varyani v. the Assistant Director of Income Tax

Karnataka HC3 Feb 2023WP/394/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the writ petition, quashing an intimation order under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court held that the petitioner's response filed in April was not considered and directed the respondent to afford another opportunity to file a response before passing such an order.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the intimation order dated 05.07.2022 and directed the respondent to enable the petitioner to file a response once again.

Deepa Nanakram Varyani Vs the Assistant Director of Income Tax — Income Tax | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 394 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 394 OF 2023 (T-IT)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

DEEPA NANAKRAM VARYANI D/O SRI. VEERUMAL AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS NO.36, JAYANGAR SHOPPING COMPLEX 4^TH BLOCK, JAYANGARA BANGALORE 560 011.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. R. CHANDRASHEKAR AND SRI. KASHINATH KALMATH, ADVOCATES FOR SRI.RAMA MURTHY R.,ADVOCATES)

¶12

AND:

¶13

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

¶14

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

¶15

CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTRE BANGALORE 560 500.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

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

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE INTIMATION DATED 05.07.2022 PASSED U/S 143(1) OF ACT IN DIN NO.CPC/2122/A3/248052783(ANNEXURE-D) TO THIS WRIT PETITION AND DIRECT THE R1 TO ACCEPT THE RETURNED INCOME.

¶19

¶20

WP No. 394 of 2023

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioner is aggrieved by the intimation order dated 05.07.2022 under Section 143[1][a] of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the petitioner’s grievance is premised in the contention that though response was filed on 07.04.2022, the intimation order is issued without considering the same. Sri. Rama Murthy R, the learned counsel for the petitioner, relies upon Annexure-C, an extract of the portal, to contend that the response was indeed filed on 07.04.2022. Sri. K V Aravind, the learned counsel for the respondent, is unable to controvert that objections are filed but he also clarifies that the nature of response is not available from Annexure-C.

¶24

It is obvious to this Court that the petitioner’s response dated 07.04.2022 is not considered, and in

¶25

¶26

WP No. 394 of 2023

¶27

that event, the impugned intimation order dated 05.07.2022 will have to be revisited after giving another opportunity to the petitioner to file its response. As such, the petition stands disposed of quashing the intimation order dated 05.07.2022 [Annexure-D] directing the respondent to enable an opportunity to the petitioner to file a response once again and then proceed in accordance with law.

¶28

Sd/JUDGE

¶29

SA ct:sr

Deepa Nanakram Varyani v. the Assistant Director of Income Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepa Nanakram Varyani v. the Assistant Director of Income Tax

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

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

Tappers Service Co. Operative Society Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)

Rajen K Bhatha Vs the Assistant Director of Income Tax

Ravi Lalchand Chhatpar Vs the Assistant Director of Income Tax