Wp/12701/2021 Of Sri Kumarchandra Chaturlal Mehta v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURUDATED THIS THE 10 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR;WRIT PETITION No.12701 OF 2021 (TIT)BETWEEN: SRI KUMARCHANDRA CHATURLAL MEHTA|SON OF LATE C.M. MEHTAAGED ABOUT 89 YEARS,|RESIDING AT NO.265/1 /SATYAM SHIVAM SUNDARAM, TRIVENI ROAD,OR 4 MAIN ROAD (WARD 36)GOKUL 1[S|]STAGE, 2 PHASE, GOKULA POSTBANGALORE-560054. (BY SRI GAUTHAM S.BHARADWAJ, ADVOCATE) ... PETITION AND: 1 |PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX.5 FLOOR, BMTC COMPLEX, 6 BLOCK,80 FEET ROAD,KORAMANGALABANGALORE-560 095. 2 _THE ASSESSING OFFICER|WARD 2 (2)(2) BMIC BUILDING,80 FEET ROAD, 6 BLOCK.NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE|KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-5S60095 (BY SRI DILIP, ADVOCATE FOR| SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) | _ RESPONDENTS THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF|THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THEIMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12.12.2019 PASSED BY THEASSESSING OFFICER ANNEXED AS ANNEXURE-A AND QUASH|THE NOTICE OF DEMAND DATED 12.12.2019 AND DATED 20.01.2071ISSUED|BY|TRE|RESPONDENTAUTHORITY|ANNEXED AS ANNEXURE-B AND C RESPECTIVELY AND ETC. THIS W.P.§ COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEAIRNG IN 'B'GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-. ORDER In this petition, petitioner seeks quashing of theimpugned Assessment order dated 12.12.2019 vide!Annexure-A passed by respondent No.2 and consequentialDemand Notices dated 172.172.2019 vide Annexures - B anC and for other reliefs. 2. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner andlearned counsel for the respondents - Revenue and_perused the material on record. 3. In addition to reiterating the various contentionsurged in the petition and referring to the documents|produced, learned counsel for the petitioner submits thatthe petitioner is aged about 89 years and was suffering|from several ailments and was hospitalized, as can be seentrom the medical records produced by the petitioner. It Is|also submitted that the Notices were issued by the! respondents to the address of the petitioner, where he was|residing only up to 2017 and the petitioner had shifted to a|different residence in the year 201/ and consequently, the|notices which are impugned In this petition were not servedupon him. It is submitted that since he did not receive the|said notices, ne could not contest the assessmentproceedings which were disposed of ex-parte without givingany opportunity to the petitioner and as such, the impugnedassessment order is violative of principles of natural justice|and the same deserves to be quashed and the matter|remitted back to the respondents for reconsideration afresnafter providing an opportunity to the petitioner. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents -Revenue submits that as can be seen trom the order of the|Assessing officer, the assessment notices were served at|the adaress Indicated in the said notices and it is now not.open for the petitioner to contend that he did not receive|the said notices. It is also submitted that there is no meritin the petition and the same Is liable to be dismissed. oS. Though the petitioner nas contended that thenotices were not received by him prior to passing of the|impugned assessment order, the said aspect need not be|gone into, In view of the material on record, which clearly|indicate that the petitioner is aged about 89 years and was|suffering trom several ailments including the suffer of brain|hemorrhage, which required hospitalization as can be seenfrom the medical records. Under these circumstances,naving regard to the highly advanced age and the ailments|of the petitioner and his hospitalization, | am of the|considered opinion that it Is necessary to provide one more|opportunity to the petitioner to contest the proceedings on|merits by setting aside the Impugned assessment order|and remitting the matter back to the respondents for|reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. 6. In the result, | pass the following:- ORDER (1) Petition is allowed. | 6. In the result, | pass the following:- ORDER (1) Petition is allowed. | (ii)TheimpugnedAssessmentorderdated| 12.12.2019 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-A| and consequential Demand Notices dated 12.12.2019 vide| Annexures - B and C are hereby quashed. (ill) The matter is remitted back to respondent No.2for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law duly|notifying the petitioner and _ providing sufficient anreasonable opportunity to the petitioner to contest the|proceedings. SD/-| JUDGE Srl.