By Sri. Harish V.s, & Sri. Vinay v. Advs

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU. DATED THIS THE 14 DAY OF AUGUST, 2015 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY WRITPETITIONNO.13230OF9201(T#IT) BHITWER% AMITH BETHALA (HUF)|NO.81o5, BLCOKKORAMANGALABANGALORE 560095. REPRESENIBD BY ITS KARIA - |MR AMITH BEBETHAL»/O PRAKASH BETHALA —AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS —. PRTITIONBR. (By Sri. HARISH V.S, & SRI. VINAY V. ADVS..,) AN INCOME TAX OFFICERWARD-7(1), 4TH FLOOR|C WING, KENDRIYA SADAN, BLOCK, KORAMANGALABANGALORE — 560 034.. ... RESPONDENT (By Sri. JEEVAN J NEERALGI, ADV.,) THIS WRIT PETITION [IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES9296 AND 2V2I7 OF THR CONSTITUTION OF INDPRAYING TO QUASH THE CONSEQUENTIAL NOTICE)OF DEMAND ISSUBD BY THE RESPONDENT DATED|31.7.2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YBAR 2007-08 VIDEANN-DAN]IMPUGNEDASSESSMENTORDERPASSED BY THE RESPONDENT U/S) 1493/3] R.WSHCTION 147 OF THER INCOME TAX ACT 1961 DATED"28.77.2014 FOR THE ASSBSSMENT YBAR 2007-08 VIDANN-E & ETC., © THIS|WRITPETITIONCOMINGON|HORPRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE)THR FOLLOWING: | ORD ER According to learned counsel for petitioner,|having filed return of income for the assessment year —2007-08, though accepted, the assessing authorityreopened the assessment by issuing notice undersection 148 of the Income Tax Act (for short the ‘Act),.on the premise that certain persons made statements ofcertain monies having been paid to the petitioner whichwere not accounted for in their return for the said|assessment year. It is the allegation of the petitionerthat proceeding of re-assessment order when concluded and passed was without extending an opportunity ofhearing to the petitioner over the alleged statementsmade by certain persons. The allegation is not seriouslycontroverted by the Revenue. 3. Undoubtedly, violation of principles of naturaljustice is palpable since a copy of the statement ofperson the basis for the notice under Section 148 of theAct, is not made available to the petitioner. — 4Suttice 1t_TOstate|that|theproceedingculminating in the reassessment order, impugned,without notice to the petitioner over the statement ofcertain persons, is illegal and cannot be sustained. | Oo. Petition is accordingly allowed. Impugnedreassessment order is quashed. Liberty is reserved tothe assessing authority to issue notice to the petitioner,furnish copies of the statements, the basis of suchnotices, and extend reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafterwarads pass orders inaccordance with law. Since parties are represented bylearned counsel, are directed to be present before theassessing officer on21[&']September2015 at 3.00 p.m.without further notice. la. Sd/-.JUDGE