Wp/21942/2022 Of Sri Purushotham Munipillappa v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

Digitallysigned byCHANDANAB MLocation:High Courtof Karnataka IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20 DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR -WRIT PETITION NO. 21942 OF 2022 (TIT) BETWEEN: SRI PURUSHOTHAM MUNIPILLAPPA S/O MUNI PILLAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT NO. 176, CQAL LAYOUT NEAR UCO BANK SAHAKAR NAGAR BANGALORE -560 092. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. G.S. NAG HARISH, ADVOCATE ) AND: 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 (2) C R BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE -560 001. 2. PRL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, C R BUILDING QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001. CENTRAL CIRCLE, C R BUILDING QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAVI RAJ Y.V., AND SRI. M. DILIP, ADVOCATES) THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUITON OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DTD 27.09.2022 PASSED BY R1 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2019-20 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-G BEARING NO.ITBA/GEA/M /260A/2022-23/1046024638(1). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM:HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:- “a. Issue a Writ of certiorari to quash the assessment order dated 27.09.2022 passed by first respondent for the Assessment year2019-20 produced as Annexure-G, bearing No.ITBA/GEA/M/260A/2022-23/1046024638(1). b. Issue such other Writ or direction as this Hon’ble Court deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the present case.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents-revenue and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondents passed an ex-parte assessment order dated 29.09.2021 against the petitioner, who challenged the same in W.P.No.20093/2021 before this Court, which allowed the said petition by setting aside the exparte assessment order and remitting the matter back to respondent No.1 for reconsideration afresh, in accordance with law. In pursuance of the same, respondents issued notices dated 05.05.2022 and 18.08.2022, to which the petitioner submitted replies dated 23.05.2022, 20.07.2022, 18.08.2022, 06.09.2022, 15.09.2022 and 24.09.2022, NC: 2025:KHC:11853 putting forth various contentions and producing documents. It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite the aforesaid facts and circumstances, respondent No.1 has proceeded to pass the impugned assessment order without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner nor properly or correctly considering or appreciating the replies and documents submitted by the petitioner, who is before this Court by way of the present petition inter alia contending that if the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent for reconsideration afresh, the petitioner would submit additional pleadings and documents in support of his claim and respondent No.1 may be directed to reconsider the matter afresh, in accordance with law. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that subsequent to the remand order dated 25.11.2021 passed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation, the respondents issued notices to which the petitioner submitted detailed replies along with documents. However, a perusal of the impugned order will indicate 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that subsequent to the remand order dated 25.11.2021 passed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation, the respondents issued notices to which the petitioner submitted detailed replies along with documents. However, a perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the replies and documents submitted by the petitioner have not been considered or appreciated by respondent No.1 in their proper perspective and respondent No.1 has proceeded to pass the impugned order without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as envisaged under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and in the light of the specific assertion on the part of the petitioner that if one more opportunity is provided, petitioner would produce additional pleadings and documents, by adopting a justice oriented approach, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to respondent No.1 for reconsideration afresh, in accordance with law. 6. In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER (i) Petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned order at Annexure-G dated 27.09.2022 is hereby set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted back to respondent No.1 for reconsideration afresh, in accordance with law. (iii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to file additional pleadings, documents etc., which shall be considered by - 5 - respondent No.1, who shall provide an opportunity of hearing in favour of the petitioner and proceed further, in accordance with law. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE Srl./BMC