Needs Manpower Support Services Private Limited Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:45658 WP No. 12930 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 12930 OF 2025 (T-IT)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

NEEDS MANPOWER SUPPORT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, NO.25, NEEDS TOWERS, 80 FEET ROAD SBM COLONY, BSK I STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 050 REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER ACCOUNTS, SRI VINAY G R S/O RAMALINGAIAH SIDDEGOWDA, AGED 39 YEARS, GEJJELAGERE POST OFFICE, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA-571 428.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. RAVI SHANKAR S V.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 5(1)(1),

¶13

BANGALORE 560 095.

¶14

Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY

¶16

ASSISTANT COMM OF INCOME TAX/

¶17

INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ROOM NO. 401, 2^ND FLOOR, E-RAMP, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM,

¶18

DELHI – 110 003.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. M. THIRUMALESH, ADVOCATE)

¶21

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144B DTD. 20.03.2025 BEARING DIN ITBA/AST/S/14393)/202425/1074765434(1) PASSED BY THE R-2 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2023-24 HEREIN MARKED AS ANNX-A.

¶22

2 -

¶23

NC: 2025:KHC:45658 WP No. 12930 of 2025

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:-

¶29

“ i) Issue a writ of Certiorari or direction in the nature of a writ of certiorari quashing the order passed U/s 143(3) r.w.s 1448 dated 20/03/2025 bearing DIN: ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2024-25/1074765434(1) passed by the Respondent No.2 for the assessment year 2023-24 herein marked as Annexure - A.

¶30

ii) Issue a writ of Certiorari or direction in the nature of a writ of certiorari quashing the penalty notice dated 20/03/2025 issued u/s 274 r.w.s 270A of the Act bearing DIN and Notice No. ITBA/PNL/S/270A/202425/1074765492(1) by the Respondent No.2 for the assessment year 2023-24 herein marked as Annexure - A1.

¶31

_iii) Issue a writ of Certiorari or direction in the nature of a writ of certiorari quashing the penalty notice dated 20/03/2025 issued u/s 274 r.w.s 272A(1) (d) of the Act bearing D and Notice No. ITBA/PNL/S/272A(1)(d)FL/202425/1074758312(1) by the Respondent No.2 for the assessment year 2023-24 herein marked as Annexure-A2.

¶32

iv) And pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶33

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:45658 WP No. 12930 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

¶36

material on record.

¶37

In addition to reiterating various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the replies dated 13.08.2024, 05.09.2024, 05.12.2024, 25.02.2025, 01.03.2025, 06.03.2025, 08.03.2025 and 12.03.2025 to point out that pursuant to the Notices/ show-cause notices and Letters issued by the respondents under the petitioner filed the aforesaid replies to the said notices/ letters. Further, the 2^nd respondent passed the impugned Assessment order dated 20.03.2025 under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the I.T. Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out to the impugned order dated 20.03.2025 in order to show that the 2^nd respondent did not properly consider the replies filed by the petitioner and proceeded to pass the impugned order, thereby violating principles of natural justice and as such, the petitioner is before this Court by way of present petition.

¶38

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:45658 WP No. 12930 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

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

¶41

A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the petitioner filed its replies to the notices / letters issued by the respondents. It is also borne out from the impugned order dated 20.03.2025 that the 2^nd respondent has not properly considered the replies filed by the petitioner and has proceeded to pass the impugned order. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned notices, proceedings culminating in the impugned penalty order is violative of principles of natural justice and consequently, the impugned order deserves to be set aside by adopting justice oriented approach and by directing the 2^nd respondent to consider the replies filed by the petitioner and thereafter proceed further in accordance with law.

¶42

In the result, I pass the following:-

¶43

ORDER

¶44

(i) The petition is hereby allowed.

¶45

5 -

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:45658 WP No. 12930 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

(ii) The impugned Assessment order at Annexure-A dated

¶49

23.03.2025 passed by the 2^nd respondent is hereby set aside.

¶50

(iii) The matter is remitted back to the 2^nd respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law from the stage of considering the replies filed by the petitioner.

¶51

(iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit his response/reply along with the documents to the Section 143(2) Notice dated 19.06.2024 issued by the respondents, who shall consider the same and proceed further in accordance with law.

¶52

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶53

Srl.

Needs Manpower Support Services Private Limited v. the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Needs Manpower Support Services Private Limited v. the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Sri Sai Motors, Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. R. Indrani Vs Additional Commissioner of Customs

M T Krishne Gowda Vs Income Tax Officer

Kaveri Vanita Sevashrama Vs the Income Tax Officer

Sagar Rathi Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax

Sri K N Manjunath Vs Sri T Ramanna