Wp/10941/2020 Of Sri Shabbir Ulla Khan v. The Income Tax Officer

NTHE|IGHCOURTOFEKARNATAKA|ATBENGALURU DATED THISTELE23 DAYOfFOCTQOBER2020. BO EFO THE|HON>BLEMRJUSTICEB.M.SHYAWPRASADWRITPETITIONNO-10941/2020(T"IT) BETWEEN$ oRI. SHABBIR ULLA KHAN,9/O. SANAULLA KHAN,AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, ©RESIDING AT NO. 24/05,16 CROSS, 4 MAIN ROAD,LAKKASANDRA, |BBNGALURU- 560 O30. —. PETITIONBR| (BY SRI. MOHAMMED MUJASSIM, ADVOCATE) AND|$ Ll.THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD /7(2) (3),BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD,6 BLOCK, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE, |KORMANGALA,BBNGALURU- 560 095. oO |THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,BMTC BUILDING, |80 FEET ROAD,KORMANGALA,BBNGALURU — 560095. 3. OYM/S. HDFC BANK,NO.195, 10 CROSbsb,WILSON GARDEN,BENGALURU- 560 O27. RBEPRBSEBENTBD BY ITS BRANCH MANAGE — RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND FOR R1 & R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF]THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE|IMPUGNED>ASSESSMENTORDERDATED3.12.2019ANDDEMAND NOTICE DATED 03.12.2019 PASSD BY THE R-1, VIDE|ANNBXUREB-A AND ANNBXUREB-B TO THR WRIT PRTITTION ANQUASH THE IMPUGNED INTIMATION DATED 11.09.2020 VIDE|ANNEXURE-G ISSUED BY R-1 TO THE R-3 AND EIC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARYHEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the)learned counsel for the first and the second respondents. | 2.The petitioner has impugned the Best Judgment.Assessment Order dated 33.12.2019 as per Annexure-A andthe corresponding Demand Notice dated 33.12.2019 as perAnnexure-B. The short ground canvassed by the learnedCounsel for the petitioner in support of the petitioner is that the petitioner did not have notice of the proposed assessmentproceedings and as such, the petitioner could not furnish thedetails. As such the impugned assessment order andconsequential demand are liable to be quashed. 3.The learned counsel for the first and the secondrespondents submits that the impugned order is anappealable order, but a request for stay of the operation of theimpugned order would be considered by the appellateauthority only if 20% of the amount due as per the impugnedassessment order is deposited. Therefore, typically writpetitions are filed impugning the assessment orders on theeround that there is violation of principles of natural justiceas this would enable the assessee to avoid the aforesaiddeposit of 20%. Even in this case the petitioner cannotcomplain of violation of principles of natural justice inasmuchas notice of assessment has been addressed to the petitioneron the!email ID/that is furnished by the petitioner and if the petitioner has not responded to such notice, he cannot takeadvantage of his own failure. 4In the rejoinder, the learned counsel for thepetitioner submits that the petitioner’s registered email is“ ” and no notice has been!received, and the petitioner to establish hisbona fides1S willing to deposit 20% of the amount demanded but the)petitioner deserves in law an opportunity to appear before theassessing officer to show cause against the Best JudgmentAssessment. | O°. In the lhght of these submissions, and the)undisputed fact that the impugned assessment is based onthe best judgment and no notice is addressed to theaforementioned petitioner|email ID,this Court is of theconsidered view that it would be just and reasonable to set)aside the impugned Assessment Order and the consequential 4In the rejoinder, the learned counsel for thepetitioner submits that the petitioner’s registered email is“ ” and no notice has been!received, and the petitioner to establish hisbona fides1S willing to deposit 20% of the amount demanded but the)petitioner deserves in law an opportunity to appear before theassessing officer to show cause against the Best JudgmentAssessment. | O°. In the lhght of these submissions, and the)undisputed fact that the impugned assessment is based onthe best judgment and no notice is addressed to theaforementioned petitioner|email ID,this Court is of theconsidered view that it would be just and reasonable to set)aside the impugned Assessment Order and the consequential Demand Notice without expressing any opinion on the meritsof the assessment remitting the matter for reconsiderationsubject to the condition that the petitioner shall deposit 20%of the impugned demand as per the impugned assessment|order within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt ofa certified copy of this order and informing the authorities onemailabout such deposit. If the petitioner makes such)deposit and informs the concerned authority byemail, the!assessing authority shall extend an opportunity to the)petitioner to show cause and decide the question ofassessment in accordance with law. It is needless to observethat if the petitioner succeeds in showing cause against theassessment proposed, the 20% in deposit will have to berefunded to the petitioner subject to applicable law. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. nv SD/-JUDGE JUDGE