Wp/13359/2023 Of Mr. Gutharamamohanarao Krishnakishor v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax

Digitally signed byVIJAYA PLocation: HighCourt of Karnataka NC: 2023:KHC:26427WP No. 13359 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27 DAY OF JULY, 2023 BEFORE. THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV|)WRIT PETITION NO. 13359 OF 2023 (TIT) BETWEEN: 1.MR. GUTHARAMAMQOHANARAO KRISHNAKISHORS/O MR. GUTHARAMA MOHANARAO,AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,|RESIDING AT NO.642,|HARAGADDE,JIGANI, ANEKAL TALUKBENGALURU RURAL-560 105| —_ PETITIONER (BY SRI. SYED KHAMRUDDIN., ADVOCATE) AND: 1.PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXBMTC BUILDING,80 FEET ROAD, 6 BLOCK,NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE, |KORAMANGALA, |BENGALURU-560 095. 2.THE INCOME TAX OFFICER| WARD 4(3)(5)BANGALORE,BMTC BUILDING,SO FEET ROAD, 6 BLOCK, -).- NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE, KORAMANGALA, |BENGALURU-560 095 (BY SRI. SUSHAL TIWARI., ADVOCATE) _ RESPONDENTS| THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE,IMPUGNEDASSESSMENT|ORDER|BEARINGNO..ITBA/AST/S/144/2018-19/1014252339(1)DTD.13/12/2018(ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE R-2 AND NOTICE OF DEMANDDTD 13/12/2018 PASSED BY THE R-2 AND FURTHER, FOR THE|ASSESSMENTYEAR2016-1 JBEARING|NO.ITBA/AST/S/156/2018-19/1014252375(1)(ANNEXURE-A1)AND ETC. THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER The petitioner nas sought for setting aside of the)assessment order at Annexure-A dated 13.12.2018, consequent.notice of demand at Annexure-Al, order dated 25.06.2019 at.Annexure-B, consequent notice of demand at Annexure-B1,.order dated 08.03.2022 passed under Section 264 of the.Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act) at Annexure-C,|rectification order dated 227.127.2077 at Annexure-D and noticof demand dated 22.12.2022 at Annexure-D1 passed by the.respondent No.2. -3- 2D.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would.submit that the notice is issued preceding the assessment orderand has been issued to a wrong email-ID, that communications|were sent to the email-ID of the Consultant, who has not kept.the petitioner intimated. Accordingly, it is submitted that the|Autnority while passing the assessment order nas treated thepetitioner as disentitled for exemption under Section 10(37) ofthe Act and added Rs.22,50,000/- to the returned income for|the year 2016-17. Learned counsel for the petitioner further|submits that if an opportunity is granted, they would be in aposition to substantiate that the addition of Rs.22,50,000/-is in fact agricultural income. It is further submitted that the.findings by the Revisional Authority under Section 264 of the|Act, are also required to be interfered with while taking a|Droader !ook at the matter and affording a fresh opportunity to.the petitioner to substantiate nis case in lignt of the benefit.conferred by way of exemption under Section 10(37) of the.Act. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would.point out that the Revisional Authority has recorded correct.findings and no case as such is made out for interference. But| -4.- NC: 2023:KHC:26427WP No. 13359 of 2023 however, he submits that the aspect of the violation of the.principles of natural justice is a matter left for a Court to be.considered appropriately. 4. Noticing the contention of the petitioner and also thatif |he was to be given an opportunity, the assertion that he wouldbe able to demonstrate that Rs.22,50,000/- added as additional income ought to have been left out and hence, entitled for|exemption under Section 10(37) of the Act is a matter that is to.be taken note of, and an opportunity may be granted for the|petitioner to file his reply to the notice dated 08.11.2019 under|Section 142(1) of the Act. | -4.- NC: 2023:KHC:26427WP No. 13359 of 2023 however, he submits that the aspect of the violation of the.principles of natural justice is a matter left for a Court to be.considered appropriately. 4. Noticing the contention of the petitioner and also thatif |he was to be given an opportunity, the assertion that he wouldbe able to demonstrate that Rs.22,50,000/- added as additional income ought to have been left out and hence, entitled for|exemption under Section 10(37) of the Act is a matter that is to.be taken note of, and an opportunity may be granted for the|petitioner to file his reply to the notice dated 08.11.2019 under|Section 142(1) of the Act. | 5. It is noticed that the Bank Account of the petitioner |SB A/c No.656902010004359 and Gold Loan A/c No.654/2282at UNION BANK OF INDIA nas been frozen (Annexure-N).In light of the petition being allowed, freezing of Bank Account.as a consequential relief would stand lifted and accordingly, the|Bank Authorities to take note of the same. 6. Accordingly, the assessment order at Annexure-A.dated13.12.2018,consequent|notice|of.demandat|Annexure-Al,order.dated.25.06.7019|atAnnexure-B, -5- consequent notice of demand at Annexure-Bl, order dated.08.03.7027)atAnnexure-C,rectification|orderdated.227.172.2022)? at Annexure-D and notice of demand date22.12.2022 at Annexure-D1 passed by the respondent No.2 areset aside, the petitioner to deposit 10% of the demand to.demonstrate nis Donafides, which is to be made within a period of four weeks from the date of defreezing of the Bank Account. 7. Accordingly, petition is disposed off. All contentions|are kept open. Sd/-|JUDGE|