Wp/15077/2023 Of Smt.s.b. Annapoorna v. Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax

Digitally signedby VIJAYA PLocation: HighCourt ofKarnataka IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURUDATED THIS THE 27 DAY OF JULY, 2023 BEFORE. THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV|'WRIT PETITION NO. 15077 OF 2023 (TIT)BETWEEN: 1.SMT.S.B. ANNAPOORNA. WIFE OF MR .K. SHANKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT SAMATHENAHALLI VILLAGE ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUKBANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 560 O6/BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 560 O6/ _ PETITIONER| (BY SRI. SYED KHAMRUDDIN., ADVOCATE) AND: 1.PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KARNATAKA AND GOA REGIONGROUND FLOOR, CR BUILDING,|NO.1, QUEENS ROAD,BENGALURU - 560 OOLGROUND FLOOR, CR BUILDING,|NO.1, QUEENS ROAD,BENGALURU - 560 OOL 2.PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2.BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD.6 BLOCK, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE|BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD.6 BLOCK, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE| KORAMANGALA,BENGALURU - 560 O95.BENGALURU - 560 O95. 3.INCOME TAX OFFICER| WARD 4(2) (1), BANGALORE, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD.6 BLOCK, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE|KORAMANGALA BENGALURU - 560 095.. VAASSESSMENT UNIT.INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD.6 BLOCK, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE|KORAMANGALABENGALURU - 560 O95. (BY SRI. SUSHAL TIWARI., ADVOCATE) .. RESPONDENTS THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 2260 OF THECONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED|NOTICEDTD19/4/2021BEARING DINNO.ITBA/AST/S/148/2021-22/1032518443 (1) ISSUED BY THER-3 (ANNEXURE-A) AND DOCUMENT DTD 26.5.2022 BEARING|DIN NO.ITBA/COM/F/17/2022-23/1043182336 (1) ISSUED BY THE R-3 (ANNEXURE-B) AND ETC. THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, ORDER Learned Counsel Sri Sushal Tiwari appearing on|benalf of the respondent would submit that the matter is)proceeded and culminated in assessment order being)passed and the present writ petition has been filed at a) -3- belated stage and nothing prevented the petitioner from)approaching this Hon ble court at an earlier point of time ifthere was any jurisdictional error. 2. However, it must be noted that it is settled.position of law that if notice suffers from jurisdictional|error though an assessment order is subsequently passed,very initiation being bad in law, legal consequences would.fallow so as to render the order which is consequential tothe initial notice as being bad in law. Accordingly, though|assessment order is passed, noticing the infirmity in thenotice insofar as no sanction by the authority under)Section 151 (il) Nas been obtained, as notice is issued|after the lapse of three years, the petition is allowed.The notice dated 19.04.2021 at Annexure-A, order dated|20.07.2022 at Annexure-C, show-cause notice dated|17.03.2023 at Annexure-E and order dated 19.04.7023 atAnnexure-F are set aside. Liberty is reserved to the|respondents to initiate fresh proceedings as is permissible| ���������� �������������������������������������� �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������0���������� ����� �������������