Yashaswini Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha Vs the Income Tax Officer

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:34007 WP No. 24708 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 24708 OF 2025 (T-IT)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

YASHASWINI GRUHA NIRMANA SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITHA, REGISTERED U/S 8 OF THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1959, NO.43, H.D.DEVEGOWDA CIRCLE, BANNUR ROAD, 1^ST CROSS, NEAR RING ROAD, MYSORE – 570 012, PAN: AAAAY2408F

¶9

REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO, SRIKANTH M, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O MADAPPA NANJAIAH, NO.2675, 4^TH CROSS, KALIDASA ROAD, V.V.MOHALLA, MYSORE – 570 010.

¶10

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: HIGH (BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR S. V., ADVOCATE) COURT OF KARNATAKA AND:

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4), MYSORE – 570 010.

¶13

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(3), MYSORE – 570 010.

¶14

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), MYSORE – 570 008.

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:34007 WP No. 24708 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ROOM NO. 401, 2^ND FLOOR, E-RAMP, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, DELHI – 110 003.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. M.TIRUMALESH, ADVOCATE)

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED U/S 144 DATED 28/12/2019 BEARING DIN. ITBA/AST/S/144/201920/1023295536(1) PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18 HEREIN MARKED AS ANNEXURE A; ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE PENALTY ORDER DATED 02/08/2021 ISSUED U/S 271F OF THE ACT BEARING DIN AND NOTICE NO. ITBA/PNL/F/271F/202122/1034575783(1) BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18 HEREIN MARKED AS ANNEXURE - A1 AND ETC.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

¶23

HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

3 -

¶25

NC: 2025:KHC:34007 WP No. 24708 of 2025

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

Petitioner is before this Court calling in question, the actions of the respondent No.3 after issuance of notice under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) on the score that they are notices without jurisdiction and all consequent actions taken thereto being illegal.

¶30

Heard Sri.Ravishankar S.V., learned counsel

¶31

appearing for the petitioner, Sri.M.Tirumalesh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the material on record.

¶32

3. Facts in brief germane are as follows:

¶33

(a) The petitioner is a House Building Cooperative

¶34

Society carrying on the activity of providing residential sites to its members by collecting money from them. For the assessment year 2017-18, no return of income was filed by the

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:34007 WP No. 24708 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

petitioner. It is the case that no income had been accrued for the said assessment years, as the formation of sites were still underway. Notwithstanding the same, a notice is issued under Section 142(1), which is communicated to a particular mail id available at the office of the respondents. It is the case of the petitioner that said mail id was not in use and therefore, the petitioner did not file his response to the notice so issued.

¶38

(b) An order of assessment is then passed under Section 144 of the Act, making addition of cash deposits during the period of demonetization, to the tune of ₹64,28,500/-, terming it to be unexplained money. Taking the proceedings further, penalty orders are passed under Sections 271F and 272A(1)(d) of the Act and finally, penalty orders are now passed under Section 271AAC(1) of the Act. On 21.07.2024, the petitioner is said to have consulted the tax practitioner and updated the email on the website of the Income Tax Department. On all the said facts, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner had no opportunity to submit his reply or appear before the respondents which has led to the impugned proceedings being

¶39

5 -

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:34007 WP No. 24708 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

ex parte . Huge burden is now cast upon the petitioner by

¶43

passing several orders, all in an ex parte proceeding.

¶44

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents Sri. Sri.M.Tirumalesh would contend that the notice was communicated to the mail id available at the Income Tax Department and therefore, the petitioner cannot now feign ignorance. Learned counsel would submit that this Court should not interfere with the impugned proceedings.

¶45

The afore-narrated facts link in the chain of events, are all a matter of record. It is not in dispute that the proceedings instituted right ' from the word go ' have remained ex parte as the genesis is a notice sent in the year 2019 for the assessment year 2017-18 and penalty orders passed subsequently. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner never replied to the notice owing to the fact that they did not get the notice to the appropriate mail and nor the notice was communicated through any other mode. In that light, the proceedings undoubtedly become ex parte . Being ex parte , the result would be obliteration of the proceedings and remitting

¶46

6 -

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:34007 WP No. 24708 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

the matter back to the hands of the authority to redo the exercise. Learned counsel for the Revenue would not oppose, if liberty is granted to redo the exercise.

¶50

6. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶51

ORDER

¶52

[i] The petition stands allowed .

¶53

[ii] Order passed U/s 144 dated 28/12/2019 bearing DIN: ITBA/AST/S/144/2019-20/1023295536(1) passed by the Respondent No.2 for the assessment year 2017-18 vide Annexure A, stands quashed.

¶54

[iii] The penalty order dated 02/08/2021 issued u/s 271F of the Act bearing DIN and Notice No. ITBA/PNL/F/271F/202122/1034575783(1) by the Respondent No.4 for the assessment year 2017-18 vide Annexure - A1, stands quashed.

¶55

[iv] The penalty order dated 02/08/2021 issued u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act bearing DIN and No. ITBA/PNL/F/272A(1)(d)/2021-22/1034575782(1) by the

¶56

7 -

¶57

NC: 2025:KHC:34007 WP No. 24708 of 2025

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

Respondent No.4 for the assessment year 2017-18 vide

¶60

Annexure - A2, stands quashed.

¶61

[v] The penalty order dated 19/01/2022 issued u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act bearing DIN and Notice No. ITBA/PNL/F/271AAC(1)/2021-22/1038858424(1) by the

¶62

Respondent No.4 for the assessment year 2017-18 vide Annexure - AЗ, stands quashed.

¶63

[vi] The matter is remitted back to the hands of respondent No.1 from the stage of submission of reply to the notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

¶64

[vii] Petitioner is at liberty to furnish/submit his reply to the said notices and respondent No.1 shall take the proceedings to its logical conclusion, in accordance with law.

¶65

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶66

CBC

¶67

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 58

Yashaswini Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha v. the Income Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yashaswini Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha v. the Income Tax Officer

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

Sri. Chinnaswamy Sunder Raju Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Indusviva Health Sciences Private Limited Vs Union of India

Mega It Store Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

South Indian Sugar Mills Association Karnataka ( Sisma K) Vs Union of India

Shri. Thimmarayareddy.K, Vs Shri.Chinnaswamy Reddy K

Mr R Kumar Vs Mr M J Thomas