Wp/12838/2020 Of Synergy Images Private Limited v. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-6

NTHE|IGHCOURTOFEKARNATAKA|ATBENGALURU DATEDTHISTHE|4 DAYOEFDECEMBER2020 BO EFO TELEHON>BLEMRJUSTICEB.MiSHYAW|p WRITPETITION|NO12838/2020!TIT" BETWEEN# SYNERGYIMAGESPRIVATELIMITED 5 FLOOR,909-510,GOWRIAPARTMENTS CBLOCKRIMglSlAGE,WARD4,|MATHIKERE,BENGALURU560054 REPBYITSDIRECTORMS,MALINI.S| _.. PETITIONER (By SMT,LAKSHMI MENON, ADVOCATE) AND|# 1,PR,COMMISSIONEROFINCOMETAX-6BMITBUILDING,SORBBTROADBMITBUILDING,SORBBTROAD BLOCK,NBEAKHBGAMESVILLAGEKORAMANGALA,BENGALURU560O95. '!DEPUTYCOMMISSIONEROFINCOMETAX(1)(2)ROOMNO238,' FLOOR,BMTCBUILDINGINCOMETAX(1)(2)ROOMNO238,' FLOOR,BMTCBUILDING SORBBTROAD, BLOCK NBEAKHBGAMESVILLAGE,KORAMANGALABENGALURU560O95.|KORAMANGALABENGALURU560O95.| (!OFFRICOF‘THOFRFFRICLIOUIDATOR-HIGHCOURTOFKARNATAKAHIGHCOURTOFKARNATAKA NO26-2712[‘T]FLOOR, RAHBJATOWERS,M.qGROAD, BENGALURU560OO1.. REPBYOFFICIALLIOUIDATOROFKARNATAKA .. RESPONDENTS. (By SRIL.K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2 ) THIS WRIT PBRTITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 ANDIAL OF THER CONSTITUIION OF [INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE ORDER|PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT/PR.COMMISSIONER OF.INCOMETAX~BEARINGNO.|ITBA/COM/F/17/2019-20/1026599418(1) DATED 13.03.2020 (ANNEXURE-A); ISSUE A.WRIT OF CHRRTIORARI OR DIRECTION IN THR NATURB OF AWRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER|BEARING NO. I.T.N.S.65 DATED 07.12.2017 (ANNEXURE-B) ANDBIC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THISDAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER The petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing|the assessment order dated 7.12.2017 in ITNS.69 |Annexure-B] by the second respondent and the order dated 13.03.2020in No. ITBA/COM/F/17/2019-20/ 1026599418/1] |Annexur A] in revision by the first respondent under Section 264 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 [for short 'the Act’}. '!The best judgment assessment order for theAssessment Year 2005-06 is ultimately set aside by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench ‘C,Bengaluru |for short ‘the Tribunal’| in ITA No.823|Bang| 2014)Of)30.03.2016with thematter|beingremitted|fOrreconsideration observing that levy of interest is mandatoryand consequential. The assessment on remand is concludedby the impugned order on /7.12.201/7 but without thpetitioner participating. The petitioner being aggrieved bythis order dated 7.12.2017 has initiated proceeding before thefirst respondent under Section 264 of the Act. The firstrespondent has declined to interfere with the order dated77.12.2017 refusing to accept the cause shown by thepetitioner for itS non participation before the AssessingOfficer. (!The petitioner’s case is that though the notices ofhearing by the Assessing Officer on 8.8.2016 and 26.10.2017are addressed to the petitioner’s address they are actually sent to the office of the Official Liquidator. The petitioner hasreceived a copy of the impugned order dated 7.12.2017 aftercorrespondence with the office of the Official Liquidator andthe petitioner has corresponded with the office of the OfficialLiquidator because there were no records pertaining toreassessment aiter the Tribunal’s order, and for the relevantperiod the petitioner’s affairs was being managed by theOfficial Liquidator consequent to the winding up order by thisCourt. This winding up proceedings has concluded in favour|of the petitioner with the order dated 29.07.2015 in OSANo.46/2013. 4However, the first respondent has considered thereasons assigned by the petitioner to show cause for non)appearance before the Assessing Officer in the light of addressfurnished by the petitioner in the returns filed on 28.10.2017for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The first respondent hasobserved that the notices by the Assessing Officer are indeedaddressed to the same office as are indicated in the returns| filed on 28.10.2017 and there is nothing on record to indicatethat there was any change in the address and the reasonsassigned by the petitioner appears to be aruse. 4However, the first respondent has considered thereasons assigned by the petitioner to show cause for non)appearance before the Assessing Officer in the light of addressfurnished by the petitioner in the returns filed on 28.10.2017for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The first respondent hasobserved that the notices by the Assessing Officer are indeedaddressed to the same office as are indicated in the returns| filed on 28.10.2017 and there is nothing on record to indicatethat there was any change in the address and the reasonsassigned by the petitioner appears to be aruse. 5)smt. Lakshmi Menon, learned counsel for the)petitioner reiterates the assertions made in the petition tocanvass that the first respondent has not considered thecause shown by the petitioner in its proper perspective while|ori. K.V. Aravind, learned Counsel appearing for the revenueis emphatic that the petitioner cannot be given repeated|opportunities. It is settled law that when once notice isissued to the registered address, there shall be deemed)service of notice. The petitioner, who has not placed any|material on record to justify that there is change in the)address, cannot contend that the first respondent was notright in rejecting the petitioner’s revision under Section 264 ofthe Act resulting in confirmation of the impugned assessmentorder dated 7.12.2017.. !The rival claims are examined in the light of theundisputed facts and the assertion that notices by theAssessing Officer on 8.8.2016 and 26.10.2017 thoughaddressed to the petitioner are actually sent to the office ofthe Official Liquidator. The petitioner has relied uponcorrespondences with the Official Liquidator to demonstratethat a copy of the impugned order has been received by thepetitioner from the office of the Official Liquidator. In thepeculiar facts and circumstances where it is urged that)though notices addressed to the petitioner is dispatched tothe office of the Official Liquidator because of the antecedentwinding up proceeding, this Court is of the considered viewthat the Tribunal has not considered the peculiarities of thecase in rejecting the petitioner’s revision and when these)peculiarities|are|considered,1T cannot.be.concludedreasonable that the petitioner is not|bonafide|in nonparticipation. As such, the following: ORDER la]The writ petition ts allowed in part. [b]The tmpugned assessment order dated7.12.2017 in ITNS.65 [Annexure-B] passed by the.first respondent and the order dated 13.03.2020 in)No.ITBA/ COM/ F/ 17/ 2019-20/ 1026599418 [1][Annexure-A] passed by the second respondent arequashed. Ic]The proceeding is restored to the file ofthe second respondent for reconsideration and the.petitioner shall appear without further notice on)4.1.2021 or any other date as may be notified bythe second respondent to the petitioner. In view of disposal of the writ petition, all pending| applications do not survive for consideration and hence standdismissed. | AN /- sd/- JUDGE