Wp/14582/2020 Of Sri Manjunatha T v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax

NTHE|IGHCOURTOFEKARNATAKA|ATBENGALURU DATED THISTHE|23 DAY|OFDECEMBER|2020 BO EFO TELEHON>BLEMRJUSTICEB.MiSHYAW|p WRITPETITIONNO14582 /2020"T!IT# BETWEEN$ SRI. MANJUNATHA T.SON OF LATEBKE THIMMAIAH H. AGED ABOUT 44 YEARSR/AT NO.154, 4 CROSS.RAILWAY LAYOUT, 2 STAGEBANGALORE SOUTH, BENGALURU — 960 Oo6. | .. PETITIONER. (BY SRI. GAUTAM 8S. BHARADWAJ., ADVOCATE) AND|$ 1.|PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONBR OF INCOME TAX.5 FLOOR, BMTC COMPLEX,6 BLOCK, 80 FEET ROAD,KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU — 5600 O95.SraaTHE ASSESSING OFFICERWARD3(2)(3), BMTC BUILDING80 FEET ROAD, 6 BLOCK.NBAR KHB GAMES VILLAGEHKORAMANGALA, BENGALURU —- 560 O95.... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE| IMPUGNEBDORDERDATHD21.10.2019BEARINGNO.|ITBA/AST/S/144/2019-20/1019157116(1) PASSED|BYTH EASSESSING OFFICER ANNEXED AS ANNEXURE ‘A’; QUASH THENOTICK OF DEMAND DATED 21.10.2019 BEARING NO.ITBA/AST/S/156/2019-20/1019157181(1) PASSED|BYTH EASSEHKSSING OFFICBR ANNBXBD AS ANNBXURE ‘B’ THIS WRIT PEIITIION COMING ON FOR PRLIMINARYHEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER The petitioner has filed this petition impugning the Best|Judgment Assessment under Section 144 of Income Tax Act1961 (for short, °the Act’) dated 21.10.2019 bearingNo.ITBA/AST/S/144/2019-20/1019157116(1)vide-ANNEXUFLE — A and the subsequent Demand Notice under Section 196 of theActdated21.10.2019inbearingNo.ITBA/AST/S/1596/2019-20/1019157181(1)videAnnexure-B. ? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned Best Judgment Assessment records that the petitioner is served with the notice but the petitioner has not responded. However, the petitioner is not served with thenotice. A physical copy of the notice is addressed to thepetitioner’s earlier address and a soft copy of the notice isaddressed to an incorrect Email address. The _ firstrespondent in arriving at the Best Judgment Assessment hasconsidered the credit entry but not the corresponding debitentry. If the debit entry is considered, the petitioner wouldbe entitled for the benefit under the prevailing Capital Gain|ocheme without any further liability. 3.Sri.K.V..Aravind,learnedcounselfor.therespondent is unable to seriously controvert the submissionthat the petitioner is not served though he is emphatic that)the second respondent has addressed the notice as per thedetails available with the authorities. If there is any change,|the petitioner had to inform the authorities about the same inthe next returns. 4HOwWevVEF1T remainsindisputablethatthepetitioner did not have a reasonable opportunity before thesecond respondent, and it is possible that the petitioner couldoffer acceptable cause against the Best Judgment Assessmentif an opportunity is given. Therefore, in the facts andcircumstances of the case, and in the interest of justice, the|impugned Best Judgment Assessment dated 21.10.2019 inNo. ITBA/AST/S/ 144/2019-20/1019157116(1andtheDemand.Noticedated21.10.2019|inNo.ITBA/AST/S/156/2019-20/1019157181(1)asPCTAnnexures - A and B are quashed and the proceedings are)restored to the second respondent for reassessment withopportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner shall appear)before the second respondent without further notice on18.01.2021. vA/-Ct:sr SD/-JUDGE