Wp/23947/2016 Of Shri Nayak Education Society v. The Income Tax Officer (Exemptions)

IN THR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BKRHNGALUR DATED THIS THE 23 DAY OF AUGUST, 2010) BREFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY !WRIT PETITION NO.23947 OF 2016 (1IT) BETWEEN: SHRI NAYAK BDUCATION SOCIBTY~899/3, GAYNAG BOWDINEAR HAZARAT JUNEDI DARGAVIJAYAPUR-586 101RBPRESEBNTBD BY [TS PRESIDENTSRI PRAKASH RATHOD|AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS9/O LATE K.T.RATHOD ... PETITIONER (BY SRI.S.PARTHASARATHI, ADVOCATE) AN D THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS)WARD-1, R.NO.208_P FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVANSEDAM ROAD, GULBARGA-585 105.. RESPONDENT (BY SRI.E.R.INDRA KUMAR, SR. COUNSEL FORSRI.E.LSANMATHI, ADVOCATE) | THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND22/ OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE|ASSESSMENTORDERPASSED|UNDERSECTIONS.143(3)R.W.S.254OF|THRACTDATHKh31.03.2016FORTHE|ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AT ANNEXURE-F PASSED BY THE.RESPONDENT EBEIC THIS WRIT PEIITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY|HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE)FOLLOWING ORDER Petitioner is an educational institution and an income.tax assessee. The petitioner had filed its return of incomedeclaring ‘NIL’ tor the assessment year 2009-10 claimingexemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, (for shortthe Act’) 1961. However, survey was conducted by theAssessing Officer under Section 133 A of the Act at thepremises of the petitioner and assessed the tax denying theexemption under Section 10(23C) of the Act. Being aggrieved,the|petitionerhadpreferreday’appealbeforethe|Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the same wasallowed. Against the said order, the Revenue preferred anappeal before the ITAT, Bengaluru. The ITAT by its orderdated 31.12.2014 remitted the said issue to the AssessingOfficer forde novo.consideration. As per the order of the|ITAT, re-assessment proceeding was initiated by way ofissuing notice to the petitioner dated 23.03.2016. Inresponse to the notice, petitioner sought reasonable time toplace the records and the required details since the offices of the concerned persons (President and Secretary) were locatedat Bengaluru. In spite of his request, the respondentassessed the income of the petitioner. Being aggrieved, thepetitioner is before this Court seeking quashing of theassessment order (Annexure-F) dated 31.03.2016 so also thedemandnotice (Annexure-G)dated31.03.2016passed/issued by the respondent for the assessment year2OQ0O9-10 2.Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that |the grounds urged by the petitioner in his reply to the notice,the assessment made by the respondent is without observingthe principles of natural justice. Further, he contends thatthe ITO (Exemption), Kalaburgi, has no jurisdiction to issuenotice to the petitioner since the petitioner comes under thejurisdiction of ITO, Bijapur. Hence, the said notice has to beset aside. 3.Learned counsel for the respondent submitted|that this petition may be disposed of since the petitioner hasalready approached the Appellate Authority. Hence, thisCourt may issue a direction to the Appellate Authority to passappropriate order. 4After hearing learned counsel for the parties, thepetition isdisposed of' reserving liberty to the petitioner toapproach the jurisdictional Court at Kalaburagi, since thepetitioner-assessee and the respondent-Revenue are residingin the same place. Since the petitioner has already preferredan appeal before the Appellate Authority, the AppellateAuthority is directed to pass appropriate order on the appealwhich is pending before it. — 5.The petitioner shall appear before the Appellate|Authority on 31.08.2016 without awaiting notice. Till thedisposal of the appeal, the respondent-Revenue shall notprecipitate recovery. Sd/-| JUDGE| TL