Wp/2456/2019 Of Mrs Kanchan Agarwal v. The Income Tax Officer

IN THR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATBD THIS THR 25 DAY OF APRIL, 2019| BEFORE: THR HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICK S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.2456/2019 (TIT) BETWEEN: Mrs. KANCHAN AGARWAL|W/O Mr. NATWAR AGARWAL|AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,R/AT LAXMI ROAD,% CROdS»s, SHANTI NAGARBANGALORBE-560 027 . PRHTITIONBER) (BY SRI HARISH V.5S., ADV.) AND: THE INCOME TAX OFFICKBRWARD 7 (2) (2), 3 FLOOR, ROOM NO.320,.BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA80 FEET ROAD, BANGALORE-o60 O95 .. RESPONDENT. (BY SRI E.I.SANMATHI, ADV.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND|22/ OF THE CONSITIUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THEIMPUGNED ORDER OF REHASSESSMENI PASSED BY THERESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) R/W SECTION 147 OFTHE ACT, RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14,|DATED NIL 1e., ANNEXURE-F AND THE CONSEQUENTIALDEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT, RELEVANT TO>THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14, DATED 24.12.2018 1.e.,ANNBXURE-G. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING|IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- 2 ORD ER The petitioner has challenged the re-assessmentorder passed by the respondent under Section 143(3)read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (forshort the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2013-14and consequential demand notice issued by therespondent. 2 |The petitioner has filed return of income on31.07.2013 relating to the Assessment Year 2013-14.The assessment proceedings were concluded undersection 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act for theAssessment Year in question. Subsequently notice wasissued under Section 148 of the Act to reopen theassessment concluded. On the request made by thepetitioner to furnish the reasons for reopening theassessment.underSection|148|oT theActOTl20.12.2018,reasons recorded were made available to|the petitioner on 24.12.2018. Accordingly, preliminary objections and explanations were filed by the petitionerOTL27.12.2018.However,there-assessment.proceedings were concluded by the respondent on.24.12.2018. Itis the grievance of the petitioner that nosufficient opportunity was provided to him to file theobjections to the reasons recorded. The AssessingOfficerproceededTOconcludethere-assessment.proceedings|withoutconsideringthepreliminaryobjections filed on 27.12.2018. It is submitted that there-assessment order impugned is not valid in the eye oflaw for passing the same sans disposing of thepreliminary objections. 3.|Learned counsel for the revenue justifyingthe impugned order submitted that re-assessment orderwas passed on 24.12.2018 prior to the preliminaryobjections submitted by the petitioner on 27.12.2018.It was further submitted that reasons recorded by theAssessing Officer for reopening the assessment under Section 148 of the Act was made available to the'petitioner on three times despite the same, noobjections were filed. It is after passing of the re-assessment order on 24.12.2018 preliminary objections:has been filed by the assessee. Hence, no fault can befound with the order impugned herein. 4|havecarefullyconsideredthe|rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for theparties and perused the material on record. 4|havecarefullyconsideredthe|rival 5.|As could be seen from the records the'petitioner has requested the Assessing Officer to furnishthe reasons recorded for reopening the assessmentrelated to the Assessment Year in question on20.12.2018. The same has been furnished on-=24.12.2018 and the preliminary objections were filed on27.12.2018. If that being the position, the AssessingOfficer ought to have provided some breathing time tothe petitioner to furnish the objections and then to have proceeded to conclude the re-assessment. On the day offurnishing the reasons recorded, the re-assessmentorder is said to have been passed. However, the copy ofthe re-assessment order made available before the court|at Annexure-F to the writ petition does not bear the dateof order. — 4|havecarefullyconsideredthe|rival 5.|As could be seen from the records the'petitioner has requested the Assessing Officer to furnishthe reasons recorded for reopening the assessmentrelated to the Assessment Year in question on20.12.2018. The same has been furnished on-=24.12.2018 and the preliminary objections were filed on27.12.2018. If that being the position, the AssessingOfficer ought to have provided some breathing time tothe petitioner to furnish the objections and then to have proceeded to conclude the re-assessment. On the day offurnishing the reasons recorded, the re-assessmentorder is said to have been passed. However, the copy ofthe re-assessment order made available before the court|at Annexure-F to the writ petition does not bear the dateof order. — 6. In such circumstances, this court is of theconsidered view that the respondent Assessing Officerhas proceeded to conclude the re-assessment in a hastymanner. The preliminary objections filed by thepetitioner on 27.12.2018 remains unconsidered assuch, the re-assessment order cannot be held to bejustifiable. — T |Accordingly, the impugned re-assessmentorder at Annexure-F and the demand notice at'Annexure-G are set-aside. The proceedings are restoredto the file of the respondent-Assessing Officer to redothe assessment considering the preliminary objections filed by the petitioner to the reasons recorded by therespondent as per Annexure-E to the writ petition dated"77.12.9018 and conclude the assessment thereafter inaccordance with law in an expedite manner preferablywithin a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt ofthe certified copy of the order. With the aforesaid observations and directions,writ petition standsdisposed off. Chs*CT-HR Sd/-—JUDGE