Wa/4551/2015 Of Shri B R Ramaraju v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THER 1 DAY OF MARCH 2016) PRESENT THR HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL AND THR HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA .WRIT APPEAL NO.45951/2015 (IT) C/W WRIT APPEAL NO.4552/2015 (TIT) AN WRIT APPEAL NOS.45534554/2015 (TIT) IN W.A. NO.4551/2015 BBRHIWEE SHRI B R RAMARAJU|AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,|SON OF SRI.B.C.RAJASHB KARNO.40/1, KHAZI STREETMOHAMMADAN BLOCKBASAVANGUDI,BANGALORE-560 OO4. _ APPBLLANT (BY MsS.JINITHA CHATTERJEE, ADVOCATE FORoRI.S.PARTHASARATHI, ADVOCATE) ANI 1.THR COMMISSIONBR OF INCOME-TAXCENTRAL CIRCLE,CENTRAL CIRCLE, QUEEN'S ROADBANGALORBE-560 OO1. a2THR JOINT COMMISSIONBR OF INCOMBE-TAX(OSD)CHRNTRAL RANGEBANGALORBE-560 OO1. .. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.V.ARAVIND, ADVOCATE)| THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THEKARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SBT!ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION|NO.6467/2015 DATED 10/09/2010. IN W.A. NO.4552/2015: BBRHIWEE SHRI B R ANJAN KUMARAGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,|SON OF LATE B.C.RAJASHEBKARNO. 40/1, KHAZI STREETMOHAMMADAN BLOCK,BASAVANGUDI,BANGALORE - 560 OO4. _ APPRLLANT (BY Ms.JINITHA CHATTERJEE, ADVOCATE FORoRI.S.PARTHASARATHI, ADVOCATE) AN): 1.THR COMMISSIONBR OF INCOME-TAXCENTRAL CIRCLE,CENTRAL CIRCLE, QUEEN'S ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. THR JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOMBE-TAX(OSD)(OSD) CRHNTRAL RANGEBANGALORE - 560 001.BANGALORE - 560 001. .. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.V.ARAVIND, ADVOCATE)| THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THEKARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SBT!ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION|6469/2015 DATED 10/09/2015. IN W.A.NOS.4553;4554/2015: BBRITWRE SMT.KAMALA RAJSHEKAR (DECD)REPRESENTED BY THE LEGAL HEIR,SRI.B.R.ANJAN KUMARAGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,|SON OF LATE B.C.RAJASHEKAR,NO.71, KHAZI STREET,MOHAMMADAN BLOCK,BASAVANGUDI,BANGALORE-560 OO4| APPBLLANT (BY MS.JINITHA CHATTERJEE, ADVOCATE FORoRIS.PARTHASARATHI, ADVOCATE) AN): 1.|THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, QUEEN'S ROAD, BANGALORE-560 OO]| 2 |THR JOINT COMMISSIONBR OF INCOMBE-TAX (OSD) CENTRAL RANGE, BANGALORE-560 OO] _ RBSPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.V.ARAVIND, ADVOCATE)| THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED U/S 4 OF THEKARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACI PRAYING TO SETIASIDE THERE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PRTITIO6470 & 26074/2015 DATED 10/09/2015) THRSK APPBALS COMING ON FOR PRBLIMINARYHERING THIS DAY,|JAYANT PATEL J2, DELIVEREDTHR FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT As in all these appeals common questions of lawarise for consideration, they are being consideredsimultaneously. 2. Writ Appeal No.4551/2015 is directed againstorder dated 10.09.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.6467/2015 whereas W.A.Nos.4553-4994/2015 are directed against the very order passedby the learned Single Judge insofar as it relates toW.P.Nos.6470/2015 and 26074/2015. | 3.|Withtheconsen_,oT|learnedAdvocatesappearing on both the sides, we have taken upW.A.No.49592/2015 listed in orders, though it is notifiedfor non-compliance of office objections. Since the issueinvolved in the present writ appeals is inter connectedand the writ appeal itself has arisen from the commonorder passed by the learned Single Judge, they areheard together. 4. W.A.No.4992/2015 has been preferred againstthe common order passed by the learned Single Judgeinsofar as it relates to W.P.No.6469/2015. o. It may be recorded that in all the appeals, thelearned Single Judge having found that learned Counselfor the petitioners was unable to point out any relevantmaterial constituting legal evidence for the claim ofexpenditure incurred by the appellants-petitioners, thelearned Single Judge did not interfere with the finding ofthe authorities and the petitions were rejected. 6. We have heard Ms.Jinitha Chatterjee, learnedCounsel appearing for the appellants in all the appealsandMr.K.V.Aravind,learnedCounsel|fortherespondents in all the appeals upon the advance copy. 4. W.A.No.4992/2015 has been preferred againstthe common order passed by the learned Single Judgeinsofar as it relates to W.P.No.6469/2015. o. It may be recorded that in all the appeals, thelearned Single Judge having found that learned Counselfor the petitioners was unable to point out any relevantmaterial constituting legal evidence for the claim ofexpenditure incurred by the appellants-petitioners, thelearned Single Judge did not interfere with the finding ofthe authorities and the petitions were rejected. 6. We have heard Ms.Jinitha Chatterjee, learnedCounsel appearing for the appellants in all the appealsandMr.K.V.Aravind,learnedCounsel|fortherespondents in all the appeals upon the advance copy. 7. The contention raised on behalt ot theappellants is that as the Assessing Officer did not grantsufficient time to the appellants to produce thedocumentary evidence as a result, the appellants couldnot produce the requisite document as a proof ofpayment for the expenses incurred and hence the orders of assessment are in breach of principles ofnatural justice. 8. Itis submitted that the appellants did approachthe revisional authority but unfortunately the revisionalauthority instead of remanding the matter, hasconfirmed the order and dismissed the revision. In the!writ petitions before the learned Single Judge, theaspect of non-observance of the principles of naturaljustice have not been properly considered and hencethis Court may consider that aspect in the presentappeals. 9. It was submitted that if one more opportunity isgiven to the appellants, the appellants may be in aposition to produce the confirmation letter of thepersons who have received money but the appellantsare not having any voucher for payment nor having any address of the persons who have received the money. 10. It was submitted that since the matter hasproceeded without giving sufficient opportunity beforethe Assessing Officer, the assessment order as well as.the order of the revisional authority be set aside and thematter may be restored to the Assessment Officer for re-examination and this Court may interfere in the matter. 11. As such, if the order of the revisional authorityis considered, it appears from the record that at threedifferent occasions, opportunity was given to thepetitioner-appellantsTO submitthedocuments.However, the petitioner-appellants did not avail of thesame. In the order of the revisional authority atparagraph-4.6, it has also been recorded that the matterwas posted before the Assessing Officer on 03.09.2013,06.09.2013 and 10.03.2014. If the aforesaid time gap isconsidered, it cannot be said that sufficient opportunitywas not given by the Assessing Officer. 12. Apart from the above, if the petitioners-appellants could not avail the opportunity, they couldhave very well produced the document of voucher as aproof of payment before the revisional authority whenthe grievance was made before the revisional authorityto the effect that the Assessing Officer did not givesufficient opportunity. But the petitioner-appellant didnot produce any document before revisional authority. 13. On the contrary, before the Assessing Officer,the petitioners-appellants in the letter dated 15.01.2014have stated thus at paragraph-1:| “1. In my letter filed on 17.11.2011, I have bought this notice to your goodself that|vouchers for brokerage that, I have not ableto produce any vouchers since | have|renovated my house during the year 2010-11. However, I have paid Rs.1,00,000/-.This has been paid to three brokers.wherein at this point of time I am not in position TObringthelraddress|andvouchers.” Further at para-2 and 3 it was stated as under: “2.For the eviction charges paid I[ havesubmitted the letter/confirmation by the.illegal occupants. They do not have anypermanent address and PAN numbers. I.have made all the payment by cash only.submitted the letter/confirmation by the.illegal occupants. They do not have anypermanent address and PAN numbers. I.have made all the payment by cash only. “1. In my letter filed on 17.11.2011, I have bought this notice to your goodself that|vouchers for brokerage that, I have not ableto produce any vouchers since | have|renovated my house during the year 2010-11. However, I have paid Rs.1,00,000/-.This has been paid to three brokers.wherein at this point of time I am not in position TObringthelraddress|andvouchers.” Further at para-2 and 3 it was stated as under: “2.For the eviction charges paid I[ havesubmitted the letter/confirmation by the.illegal occupants. They do not have anypermanent address and PAN numbers. I.have made all the payment by cash only.submitted the letter/confirmation by the.illegal occupants. They do not have anypermanent address and PAN numbers. I.have made all the payment by cash only. 3. Improvement made during the year 1991-92, amounting to Rs.1,90,000/- towards—improvement has been spent almost for last.30 years. The documents/proof are not.available since my house is renovated.” |92, amounting to Rs.1,90,000/- towards—improvement has been spent almost for last.30 years. The documents/proof are not.available since my house is renovated.” | The aforesaid shows that even as per the petitioner-appellants, there was neither any proof ofpayment in terms of the voucher for the expenditureclaimed as’ deduction nor such documents wereproduced at any point of time before the revisional authority. When the matter was heard before thelearnedsingleJudgein.writproceedings,such.documents were not produced nor are they produced inthe present appeals. — 14. Under these circumstances, when proper legalevidence regarding proof of expenditure was notproduced either before the Assessing Officer nor atsubsequent stages of the revision petition or writpetitions before the learned Single Judge nor in thepresent appeals, we do not find that there would be anyprejudice caused to the appellant on the alleged groundof breach of principles of natural justice nor any usefulpurpose would be served in remanding the matter assought to be canvassed. The aforesaid in any case iscoupled with the aspect that reasonable opportunitywas given before the Assessing Officer but thepetitioner-appellants did not avail of the same by producing the requisite voucher for the expenditureclaimed. 15. In view of the above, it cannot be said that the learned Single Judge committed an error in notinterfering with the matter when no legal evidence wasproduced for expenditure claimed. Hence, we do notfind any case is made out for interference in theseappeals. 16. Under the circumstances, all the appeals aredismissed. In view of the disposal of the appeals, officeobjections raised in W.A.No.4552/2015 would notsurvive for compliance. JT/- Sd/-.JUDGE| Sd/-.JUDGE|