Sri S v. Ravi Shankar, The Learned

Digitallysigned byNARASIMHAMURTHYVANAMALALocation:HIGHCOURT OFKARNATAKA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27 DAY OF NOVEMBER,2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.24526 OF 2023(T-IT) BETWEEN: SRI ANDIPAKULA ADIKESAVULU NAIDU FLAT NO.301, VANDANA PARADISE, 3 CROSS, NGR LAYOUT, BOMMANAHALLI, BANGALORE 560068. PRESENTLY AT. ANDIPAKULA ADIKESAVULU NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/O LATE KRISHNAMA NAIDU, NO.218, 27 MAIN, 1 FLOOR, HSR LAYOUT, SECTOR 2, BANGALORE 562102. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVI SHANKAR S V.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE 560095. INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE 560095. 2. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE REP BY ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME REP BY ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ROOM NO.401, 2 FLOOR, E RAMP, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, DELHI 110003. 3. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 THE OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE 560095. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.M.DILIP.,ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE NOTICE U/S 148A(b) OF THE ACT DATED 11.03.2022 BEARING DIN NO.ITBA/ AST/ F/ 148A(SCN)/ 2021-22/1040620208(1) ISSUED BY THE R1 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19 HEREIN MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A; QUASH THE ORDER U/S 148A(d) OF THE ACT DATED 31.03.2022 BEARING DIN NO.ITBA/AST/F/148A/2021-22/1042293563(1) ISSUED BY THE R1 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19 HEREIN MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A1. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER The petitioner, apart from impugning the notice dated 11.03.2022 in DIN No.ITBA/AST/F/148A(SCN) 2021-22/1010620208 (1) [Annexure – A] issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short, ‘the IT Act’], has impugned the following orders/notices: The order dated 31.03.2022 in DIN No.ITBA/ AST/ F/ 2021-22/ 1042293563 under Section 148A(d) of the IT Act [Annexure-A1]; No.ITBA/ AST/ F/ 2021-22/ 1042293563 under Section 148A(d) of the IT Act [Annexure-A1]; The notice dated 31.03.2022 in DIN No.ITBA/ AST/S/148-1/2021-22/104230 7776(1) under Section 148 of the IT Act [Annexure-A2]; No.ITBA/ AST/S/148-1/2021-22/104230 7776(1) under Section 148 of the IT Act [Annexure-A2]; The order dated 22.03.2023 in DIN No. ITBA/AST/S/147/2022-23/1051116247 (1) under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the IT Act [Annexure-A3]; ITBA/AST/S/147/2022-23/1051116247 (1) under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the IT Act [Annexure-A3]; The penalty order dated 15.09.2023 in DIN No.ITBA/PNL/F/272A(1)(d)/2023-DIN No.ITBA/PNL/F/272A(1)(d)/2023- 24/1056131037(1) under Section 271(1)(d) of the IT Act; •The penalty order dated 22.09.2023 in DIN No.ITBA/PNL/F/271AAC(1)/2023-24/1056435541(1) under Section 271AAC(1) of the IT Act. These proceedings relate to the Assessment Year 2018-19. 2.Sri S. V. Ravi Shankar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has filed ITR for the Assessment Years up to 2017-18 furnishing email details of his tax practitioner, Sri.Ranganath, but with the demise of Sri Ranganath in the month of August 2020 during COVID outbreak, the petitioner has engaged the services of another practitioner, Sri Seshachalapathy; that the petitioner has updated email ID of this practitioner on the portal and has also filed ITR for the year 2019-20 furnishing such revised details. - 5 - NC: 2023:KHC:42807 24/1056131037(1) under Section 271(1)(d) of the IT Act; •The penalty order dated 22.09.2023 in DIN No.ITBA/PNL/F/271AAC(1)/2023-24/1056435541(1) under Section 271AAC(1) of the IT Act. These proceedings relate to the Assessment Year 2018-19. 2.Sri S. V. Ravi Shankar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has filed ITR for the Assessment Years up to 2017-18 furnishing email details of his tax practitioner, Sri.Ranganath, but with the demise of Sri Ranganath in the month of August 2020 during COVID outbreak, the petitioner has engaged the services of another practitioner, Sri Seshachalapathy; that the petitioner has updated email ID of this practitioner on the portal and has also filed ITR for the year 2019-20 furnishing such revised details. - 5 - NC: 2023:KHC:42807 3.As regards the cause for the present petition, Sri. S. V. Ravi Shankar submits that the notices and orders are addressed to the email ID of the earlier practitioner and as such, the petitioner has not had the opportunity of showing cause against the proposed reassessment. The learned counsel emphasizes that: the proposed reassessment is because of five transactions as reflected in the annexures appended to the Notice dated 11.03.2022, but the first two transactions viz., deposits made with M/s. Andhra Bank in a sum of Rs.3,89,67,00,000/- and Rs.18,51,076/- do not relate to the petitioner, five transactions as reflected in the annexures appended to the Notice dated 11.03.2022, but the first two transactions viz., deposits made with M/s. Andhra Bank in a sum of Rs.3,89,67,00,000/- and Rs.18,51,076/- do not relate to the petitioner, the petitioner has not filed ITR for the relevant Assessment Year 2018-19, but has filed an application for condonation of delay on 22.08.2019 stating that because of personal problems ITR is not filed in relevant Assessment Year 2018-19, but has filed an application for condonation of delay on 22.08.2019 stating that because of personal problems ITR is not filed in time and certain tax liability will be discharged once the delay is condoned, discharged once the delay is condoned, that the petitioner’s application is rejected on 12.06.2023 and sent to the earlier practitioner’s email ID rather than the petitioner’s current tax practitioner’s email ID which is now updated in the profile. on 12.06.2023 and sent to the earlier practitioner’s email ID rather than the petitioner’s current tax practitioner’s email ID which is now updated in the profile. 4. Sri M.Dilip, the learned counsel for the respondents, submits that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the reasons assigned should have asked for details to file objections, and in the absence thereof, the petitioner cannot have a grievance with the additions made in the impugned assessment order. However, Sri M. Dilip is unable to controvert the factual assertions such as that after the demise of the petitioner’s erstwhile tax practitioner in the month of August 2020, the petitioner has updated the details furnishing the email ID of his current tax - 7 - practitioner and that no notice or intimation of the order is sent to such addresses. 5.In the light of these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that there is reason for interference insofar as the completion of the adjudication under Section 148A(d) of the IT Act, the assessment under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the IT Act and consequential notices and demands. With these orders/notices being quashed, the proceedings must be restored for continuance from the stage under Section 148A(b) of the IT Act with liberty to the petitioner to file response and also ask for details as regards those additions which are proposed now under Section 148A(b) of the IT Act. Hence, the following: ORDER The petition is allowed in part, and the following proceedings/notices/demands are quashed and the proceedings are restored to the 5.In the light of these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that there is reason for interference insofar as the completion of the adjudication under Section 148A(d) of the IT Act, the assessment under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the IT Act and consequential notices and demands. With these orders/notices being quashed, the proceedings must be restored for continuance from the stage under Section 148A(b) of the IT Act with liberty to the petitioner to file response and also ask for details as regards those additions which are proposed now under Section 148A(b) of the IT Act. Hence, the following: ORDER The petition is allowed in part, and the following proceedings/notices/demands are quashed and the proceedings are restored to the stage under Section 148A(b) of the IT Act with liberty to the petitioner to file response/documents and also seek further details as would be permissible in law: The order dated 31.03.2022 in DIN No.ITBA/ AST/ F/ 2021-22/ 1042293563 under Section 148A(d) of the IT Act [Annexure-A1]; under Section 148A(d) of the IT Act [Annexure-A1]; The notice dated 31.03.2022 in DIN No.ITBA/ AST/S/148-1/2021-22/104230 7776(1) under Section 148 of the IT Act [Annexure-A2]; No.ITBA/ AST/S/148-1/2021-22/104230 7776(1) under Section 148 of the IT Act [Annexure-A2]; The order dated 22.03.2023 in DIN No. ITBA/AST/S/147/2022-23/1051116247 (1) under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the IT Act [Annexure-A3]; ITBA/AST/S/147/2022-23/1051116247 (1) under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the IT Act [Annexure-A3]; The penalty order dated 15.09.2023 in DIN No.ITBA/PNL/F/272A(1)(d)/2023-DIN No.ITBA/PNL/F/272A(1)(d)/2023- - 9 - NC: 2023:KHC:42807WP No. 24526 of 2023 24/1056131037(1) under Section 271(1)(d) of the IT Act; •The penalty order dated 22.09.2023 in DIN No.ITBA/PNL/F/271AAC(1)/2023- 24/1056435541(1) under Section 271AAC(1) of the IT Act. Sd/- JUDGE SA ct:sr