M/S Inpv Lighting (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India

M/S INPV LIGHTING (INDIA) PVT. LTD A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 2013 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 713, 6^TH B CROSS ROAD KORAMANGALA 3^RD BLOCK BENGALURU - 560 034 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. PRADEEP KUMAR SHEKAR

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. BHARATH KUMAR .V, ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

AND:

¶15

UNION OF INDIA THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE ROOM NO.66-A, NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI - 110 001.

¶16

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(3)(1) BANGALORE, HAVING OFFICE AT BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD 6^TH BLOCK, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 095.

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:50853 WP No. 36538 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE ADDITIONAL / JOINT / DEPUTY / ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX / INCOME TAX OFFICER MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ROOM NO. 401 2^ND FLOOR, E-RAMP JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM NEW DELHI - 110001.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. M. DILIP, ADVOCATE)

¶23

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 28.03.2022 BEARING DIN NO. ITBA/AST/S/147/2021-22/1041849074(1) PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 3 UNDER SECTION 147 R/W SECTION 144 AND SECTION 144B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Sri.M.Dilip, learned counsel accepts notice for respondents.

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶29

counsel for respondents and perused the materials on record.

¶30

In addition to reiterating various contentions urged in

¶31

the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the impugned show cause

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:50853 WP No. 36538 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

notice dated 24.03.2022, in order to point out that the said notice stipulate the period of less than 07 days, since the petitioner has been called upon to submit his reply on 26.03.2022 at 23:59 hours, which is less than the stipulated period of 07 days as contained in the Standard Operating Procedure applicable to the impugned show cause notice. It is submitted that in the light of the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shri. Chowdapally Dattaprakash Ajay vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes and others - W.P.No.12923/2023 dated 06.07.2023, the impugned assessment order dated 28.03.2022 at Annexure-A deserves to be set-aside and the matter be remitted back to the concerned respondents from the stage of petitioner submitting his reply to the show cause notice dated 24.03.2022 and to proceed further in accordance with law.

¶35

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

¶36

In Chowdappally’s case supra, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court held as under:

¶37

4 -

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:50853 WP No. 36538 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

"The petitioner has sought for setting aside of the assessment order dated 19.05.2023 passed by respondent No.2 under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 1961 Act') at Annexure-A1, setting aside of the computation sheet at Annexure-A2, setting aside of the notice of demand at Annexure-A3 and has also sought for setting aside of the penalty notice at Annexure-A4. The petitioner has also sought for setting aside of the notice under Section 148 of 1961 Act at Annexure-B1, setting aside of notice under Section 148A(b) of 1961 Act at Annexure-B2, setting aside of notice under Section 148A(d) of 1961 Act at Annexure-B3 and the notice under Section 148 of 1961 Act at Annexure-B4. The petitioner has also sought for setting aside the Instruction bearing No.1/2022 dated 11.05.2022 at Annexure-C.

¶41

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the assessment order is liable to be set aside on the sole ground of violation of principles of natural justice as the show cause notice at Annexure-J was issued on 10.05.2023 seeking for reply before 15.05.2023, which time for response is contrary to the SOP applicable for faceless assessment, copy of which is produced at Annexure-T.

¶42

3. Attention is drawn to Clause N.1.3 which observes that the time for response to a show cause notice ought to be 7 days from the issue of show cause notice. He submitted that in the assessment order it was observed that there was no reply to the show cause notice and the Assessing Officer has proceed without any reply from the petitioner. It is submitted that in the light of the inadequate time that is available to make out a response which time limit is contrary to the SOP relating to time

¶43

5 -

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:50853 WP No. 36538 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

to be given for response to the show cause notice, it is submitted that the assessment order may be set aside and fresh opportunity may be accorded to the petitioner to make out reply to the show cause notice.

¶47

4. Perused the show cause notice at Annexure-J.

¶48

5. It is clear that the notice has been issued on 10.05.2023 by 18.14 hours. The response was directed to be made by 15.05.2023. The time that is stipulated for response is in clear violation of the applicable SOP at Clause N.1.3 which requires that at least 7 days time to be given for the purpose of making out a response.

¶49

6. It is clear that the plea of prejudice caused to the petitioner and violation of principles of natural justice is a contention that requires acceptance. Accordingly, on the sole ground, the matter is remanded to the stage post show cause notice at Annexure-J dated 10.05.2023. The petitioner is at liberty to make out his reply to the show cause notice at Annexure-J and the Authority to afford all opportunities as is permissible under the law to complete the proceedings. All contention of the petitioner are kept open.

¶50

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aspect of limitation is also to be kept open. Said submission of the petitioner is taken note of. Accordingly, Annexures-A1 to A4 are set aside.

¶51

The matter is disposed off subject to the above observations."

¶52

6 -

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:50853 WP No. 36538 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

In the instant case, a perusal of the show cause notice would indicate that the same was issued at 24.03.2022 calling upon the petitioner to submit his reply on or before 23:59 hours on 26.03.2022, which is less than 07 days from the date of issuance of a show cause notice and the same being violative of standard operative procedure as held by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned assessment order and further notices deserve to be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the concerned respondents for reconsideration afresh from the stage of issuing show cause notice in accordance with law.

¶56

7. In the result, pass the following:

¶57

ORDER

¶58

(i) The petition is hereby allowed .

¶59

(ii) The impugned order dated 28.03.2022 at Annexure-A passed by respondent No.3 is hereby set-aside.

¶60

(iii) The matter is remitted back to the stage of issuance of show cause notice dated

¶61

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:50853 WP No. 36538 of 2025

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

24.03.2022 with liberty to file additional pleadings, documents etc., which shall be considered by the concerned respondents after providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and proceed further in accordance with law.

¶64

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶65

NBM

¶66

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 21

M/S Inpv Lighting (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Inpv Lighting (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Hemavathi Muddappa Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Muniraju Vs Galappa

M/S Buraaq Enterprises Vs State of Karnataka

Dr. Ankit Vishal Vs the Registrar (Evaluation)

Mr Jayakumar Chelladurai Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre

M/S Valdel Engineers and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Central Board of Direct Taxes