Wp/105048/2021 Of Rudrappa v. The Income Tax Officer Ward No-2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA |DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 27 DAY OF DECEMBER 27071 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA %W.P.No.105048/2021 (1IT) BETWEEN RUDRAPPA S/O. BASAVARAJ WALIAGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,SIDRAMESHWARA NAGARA,|FLOUR MILL JAMKANDI,BANAHATTI-587313, (BY SRI.H R KAMBIYAVAR, ADV.) AND 1.|THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD NO-2SECTOR NO. 24, NAVANAGAR,BAGALKOTE. WARD NO-2SECTOR NO. 24, NAVANAGAR,BAGALKOTE. D2.|GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.MINISTRY OF FINANCE,INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT,OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY,COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE,DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE BELAGAVI MINISTRY OF FINANCE,INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT,OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY,COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE,DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE BELAGAVI (BY SRI.LY.V.RAVIRAJ, ADV.) ... PETITIONER .. RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &@22/7 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO I) ISSUEWRIT OF CERTIORARI OR WRIT IN THE LIKE NATURE OF|QUASHING THE IMPUGNED AN _ EX-PARTE ASSESSMENORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1, DATED 17/08/2021,|PASSED IN DIN AND ORDER NO.ITBA/ AST/ S/ 144/ 2021-22/.1034938404(1), PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1, VIDE!ANNEXURE-E AND ETC., THISPETITION|COMING.ON.FOR|PRELIMINARY|HEARING B-GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE!FOLLOWING: ORDER 1.The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petitionis that he was not granted an opportunity of hearing and the|said order is required to be quashed as it was in violation of the mandatory requirement. — 2.In the impugned order, the Assessing Authority has stated as follows: “3. The case was selected for compiete scrutiny under|CASS as per tne Board's guideline compulsory scrutiny|selection for survey U/S133A of the Income Tax Act,1961 and notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act,|1961 dated 02-11-2020, which was served on the)assessee by mail and registered post. Further, the|case is centralized by the Pr. Commissioner of incometax,HubballivideNotificationulsJT)|InF.No.127/PR.CIT-HBL/2020-21 dated 08-02-2021. 4.1 As there was a change in incumbent, notice|u/s129 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 alongwith Notice|u/s142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was Issued|electronicallyOf)22-03-7071 alongwith.detailedguestionnaire calling for information. There was _ nresponse to the same. Further, notice u/s. 142(1) of|the of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was_ issued a electronicallyagainOP)15-07-7071 callingforinformation and posting the case for hearing for whichalso, there was no response. All the above notices u/S.142(1) were also sent electronically at the e-mail)address of the assessee. 4) All this behaviour of the assessee constrained the|assessment proceedings to be conciuded exparte Uu/S144|the[ncome TaxAct,1961.|However,In|consideration of the [ssues [nvolved and in the Interest|of natural Justice, a final opportunity was issued to theassessee on 11-08-2021 providing tne details of the|Incomes to pe added pack In the assessment and|requesting to furnisn the evidences and to snow causewny the assessment snould not concluded ex parte|u/s. 144 the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the basis of the|information available on record. These snow cause|notices was also served on the assessee by electronic|mode at the emeail address of the assessee andproposed the line of action being taken, in conciuaing|the asst. proceedings considering tne fact that, tnere|is no co-operation from the assessee. This final)opportunity aiso did not evoke any response from tneassessee. The non-compliance by the assessee to)Statutory|notices clearlySNOWthat.reasonable,|speaking and fullest natural Justice has been followed|in tne instant case, but it is the assessee wno has not|availed any chances for the reasons best known to him. Therefore, the bar of ‘natural Justice’ has been|breached by the assessee for the reasons known to|him and thereby compelling the conclusion of the|proceedings, exparte u/s 144 the Income Tax Act,|1961.”| 3.Tne order does not indicate that an enquiry wasconducted or that a hearing was granted to the petitioner.|This position is also not disputed by Sri. Y. R. Raviraj. | 4 It is to be noticed nere that the period mentionedin the impugned order relates to the period when the entire|nation was subject to a lock-down. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner is only seeking an opportunity of hearing,|in my view, it would be just necessary to grant him anjOpportunity of hearing. 5.I therefore, quash the impugned orders and directthe Assessing Authority to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass a fresn order. | 6,Writ petition is accordingly allowed. | 7It is needless to state that all the contentions available to the petitioner can be raised before the AssessingAuthority. KGK Sd/-.JUDGE