Wp/1916/2022 Of M/S M.e. Electricals Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner Of Income Tax

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU| DATED THIS THE O0 DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022. BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV;WRIT PETITION NO.1916 OF 2022 (TIT) BEIT WEEN M/s. M.E. Electricals Pvt. Ltd., |356 & 359, 1 floor,2[1(]Main Road, 11["2]Block,Nagarbnavi 2[1(]Stage,Bengaluru-56007 2. Rep. by its DirectorSri.Gangadnar S ©S/p Late K. Somaiah, —Aged about 52 years. _ Petitioner (By Sri.Chidananda Urs B.G. Advocate) AND: 1.|Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1 (2)| Central Revenue Building, | No.1, Queens Road, |Bangalore-560001. —Bangalore-560001. — 2 |The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1 (2)|Central Revenue Building, | No.1, Queens Road, Bangalore-560001. (By Sri.E.I.sanmathi, Advocate) .. Respondents. OK OK This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 2726 and 2277 othe Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned|assessment order vide Din and Order dated 1/7.04.2021 atAnnexure-H and etc. This Writ Petition coming on for Orders, this day, theCourt made the following: ORDER The petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of|certiorari to quash the impugned Assessment Order at|Annexure-H issued by respondent No.2, to quasn the}Computation Sheet at Annexure-H1 and consequently, the|Notice of Demand at Annexure-H2 issued by respondent:No.2. The petitioner has also sought for condonation ofdelay in filing the return for the assessment year 2017-18|under section 132(bD) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2D The petitioner submits that the return that has_been filed on 30.10.2018 is through Sri. Nagesh Shastri on- behalf of M/s. SSK Associates, Group Auditors and ChartedAccountants. It is further submitted that the department|had proceeded to complete the assessment proceedings on.the basis of the said return filed. It is stated that the|petitioner was selected for. scrutinassessment underSection 143(2) of the Income Tax Act and Notice was issued. |At that stage, it is stated that the petitioner came to know|that the Charted Accountant through whom return was filedat the first instance on 30.10.2018 was engaged in|fraudulent activities. Accordingly, steps were taken tore-qudit the Dooks of accounts and fresh return came to be|filied on 14.07.2020. The present writ petition nas been filedseeking for re-opening of the assessment proceedings that|Nas peen concluded on tne pasis of the return filed|on 30.10.2018 and seeks the same to be re-done in terms of the return filed on 14.07.7070. 3.Learned counsel for the revenue would point outthat the revised return filed was with delay and the Authority| for condonation of delay is as prescribed under Section| 119(2)(a) and 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act. 4Though the learned counsel for the petitionersubmits that in extraordinary circumstance, the Court itself|can condone the delay in filing of the revised return, in lignt|of the statutory remedy available, it would be appropriate torelegate the petitioner to seek for condonation of delay in.filing the revised return by approaching tne Authority in|terms of section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act. | 5.However, in lignt of the apprenension of tnepetitioner regarding recovery proceedings pursuant to theassessment order passed on the return filed on the earlier|point of time on 30.10.2018, order could be passed to keep.the assessment order passed on 17.04.2021 in abeyance, if the petitioner approaches the requisite authority within the|period of two weeks from the date of release of the orderand seeks for condonation of delay in filing the revised|return. In the interregnum, it would secure the ends of justice, if the petitioner is directed to deposit 10% of the|demand at Annexure-H2. Learned counsel Sri. K.V.Aravind accepts notice for the|respondents. It is clarified that the direction for deposit of 10% ismade taking note of the facts of the present case and is not be construed as laying down a general condition to beimposed in like matters. Sd/-. JUDGE|