Allowed

M/S Davanam Constructions Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Karnataka HC4 Dec 2024WP/11459/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed writ petition quashing notices and assessment orders under Section 153C of Income Tax Act. Court held that a person whose premises are searched becomes a 'searched person', not an 'other person', necessitating proceedings under Section 153A.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of notices dated 21.08.2019, assessment orders dated 31.12.2019, demand notices dated 31.12.2019, and letter dated 10.09.2020. Liberty taken to initiate appropriate proceedings under the corr

M/S Davanam Constructions Private Limited Vs Deputy… — Income Tax | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:50032 WP No. 11459 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.11459 OF 2021 (T-IT)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

M/S. DAVANAM CONSTRUCTIONS

¶8

PRIVATE LIMITED NO.148, SURVEYOR STREET BASAVANAGUDI

¶9

BENGALURU-560 004 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SHRI HARISH D.V., AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI K. SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI A. MAHESH CHOWDHARY, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CR BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI RAVI RAJ Y.V. & SRI M. DILIP, ADVOCATES)

¶17

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH AND STRIKE DOWN THE IMPUGNED SECTION 153C OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 BEARING NO.ITBA/AST/S/153C/201920/1017491421 (1) DATED 21.08.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-A1, ETC.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:50032 WP No. 11459 of 2021

¶20

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Proceedings were initiated by the respondent against the petitioner and the premises of the Director of the petitioner herein was searched. On the ground that incriminating materials have been found, the respondent initiated proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). On the short ground that proceedings ought to have been initiated under Section 153A of the Act, the present writ petition is filed.

¶24

The petitioner contends that search was ordered to be conducted in respect of one Sri D.K.Shivakumar. Separate warrants were issued to conduct search in the premises of one Sunil Kumar Sharma and the Directors of the petitioner herein (in the capacity of the Directors of the petitioner company). In the search conducted against Sri Sunil Kumar Sharma, incriminating material was found against him and in the search conducted against the Directors of the petitioner herein

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:50032 WP No. 11459 of 2021

¶27

incriminating material was found against the petitioner company.

¶28

The respondent initiated proceedings against the said Sunil Kumar Sharma and the present petitioner herein under Section 153C of the Act. The said Sunil Kumar Sharma challenged the same by way of W.P.No.9939/2022 and connected matters. The learned Single Judge on the ground that proceedings ought to have been initiated under Section 153A of the Act and not Section 153C of the Act, allowed the writ petitions. The said order was challenged before a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.830/2022 and other connected matters. The view of the learned Single Judge has been upheld and the writ appeals filed by the revenue came to be rejected on the ground that the search conducted on the premises of a person becomes a 'searched person' and not 'other person' as required for the purposes of Section 153C of the Act. The same was challenged by filing SLP No.21526/2024 by the revenue. The said SLP also came to be dismissed.

¶29

As the facts in W.P.No.9939/2022, W.A.No.830/2022, SLP No.21526/2024 and the present case are similar and originate

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:50032 WP No. 11459 of 2021

¶32

from the proceedings initiated against the same person namely, Sri D.K.Shivakumar and the search warrants were issued on the same day and the search was conducted on the premises of the Directors of the petitioner company in their capacity as its Directors, as admitted by both the petitioner and respondent herein, this Court is bound by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court and also the Hon'ble Apex Court. For the said reason, the writ petition requires to be allowed as the petitioner becomes the 'searched person' and not the 'other person' for the purposes of Sections 153A and 153C of the Income Tax Act. Hence, the following:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

(i) The impugned notices dated 21.08.2019 (vide Annexures-A to A5 to the writ petition), the impugned assessment orders dated 31.12.2019 (vide Annexures-B to B6 to the petition), the impugned demand notices dated 31.12.2019 (vide Annexures-C to C6 to the petition) and the impugned letter dated 10.09.2020 issued by the respondent (vide Annexure-D to the writ petition) are quashed;

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:50032 WP No. 11459 of 2021

¶37

(ii) The respondent is at liberty to initiate appropriate

¶38

proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶39

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶40

hkh.

M/S Davanam Constructions Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Davanam Constructions Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner 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

M/S. Sukruth Autoteck Industries Vs the Union of India

M/S Naganna Eranna Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Ambligola Project Private Limited Vs Union of India

Ritnand Balved Education Foundation Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Narayanaswamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Hanumantharayappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner