Wp/27383/2016 Of M/S. Shubharam Complex v. The Income Tax Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA Al BENGALURU DATBRD THIS THER DAY OF APRIL, 2018. BERFORE THR HON BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA#WRIT PETITION NO.27383 OF 2016(1IT) BERETWRE M/S.SHUBHARAM COMPLEX,NO.144, SHUBHARAM COMPLEX,M.G.ROAD,BBENGALURU — 560 OO]REPRESENTED BY SRI RAMANA GOWDA,(MANAGING CO-OWNER). ... PETITIONER, (BY SRI ASHOK A.KULKARNI, AND|ORI SIDDAREDDY, ADVOCATES) AND: 1.THE INCOME TAX OFFICERWARD-1(1), BENGALURU,! FLOOR, 59, HMT BHAVAN,BALLARI ROAD,|BBNGALURU — 560 032.WARD-1(1), BENGALURU,! FLOOR, 59, HMT BHAVAN,BALLARI ROAD,|BBNGALURU — 560 032. 2.THE INCOME TAX OFFICKBRWARD-1(2)(1), BENGALURU,![‘T]FLOOR, 59, HMT BHAVAN,BALLARI ROAD,|BBNGALURU — 560 032.WARD-1(2)(1), BENGALURU,![‘T]FLOOR, 59, HMT BHAVAN,BALLARI ROAD,|BBNGALURU — 560 032. 3.THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONBR OF INCOME TAX.BENGALURU -1, BENGALURU* FLOOR, INCOME TAX OFFICE,|BMTC BUILDING,KORAMANGALA,BBNGALURU — 560 095. — RBSPONDENTS (BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND|22/7 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH BY AWRIT OF CERTIORARI, THE COMMUNICATION NO.NIL DATED15.03.2013 IN ANNEXURE-D WHERE, IT WAS HELD THAT THE|RETURN WAS DBFECTIVE AND IT INVOKBD THR PROVISIONS|OF 139(9) ETC., THIS WRIT PRTITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY.HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER The petitioner has challenged the communicationdated 15.03.2013 and 28.10.2015, at Annexure-D andAnnexure-G respectively and the order at Annexure-J-dated 16.02.2016 to the writ petition, whereby it hasbeen held that the return filed is defective and the'ageregate of shares as filed by the petitioner exceeds100%,inter aliaseeking a direction to the second respondent to process the return filed by the petitionerand grant of refund due to it. 2 |It is the grievance of the petitioner that thereturns filed by the petitioner was declared as invalid interms of Section-139(9) of the I.T. Act 1961; thepetitioner was advised to file corrected return of incomeby 31.03.2013. The petitioner explained that there is nomistake and the return filed shows correct shares|ageregating 100%. 3.|It is contended that on the letter of the'second respondent, advising the petitioner to file a freshreturn oT|incomeandapproachthePrincipalCommissioneroT|IncomeTax|Commissionerforcondonation of delay in filing the return of incomeunder Section-119(2)(b) of the Act, the same was actedupon. Surprisingly, the third respondent—PrincipalCommissioner Of Income Tax rejected the petitioner’s application filed under Section—119(2)(b) of the Actwithout providing an opportunity of hearing to thepetitioner. 4Sri.K.V.Aravind, 1earned counsel appearing|for the respondents would clearly submit that thereturn filed depicted correct shares aggregating 100%.However, the third respondent rejected the applicationfiled under Section—119(2)(b) of the Act for the reasonthat the assessee’s case does not fall under the'condition prescribed under the Circular-9 of 2015, as.the return of income was filed well in time. Hence, if a)direction is issued by this Court to respondent No.1 toscrutinize the returns filed by the petitioner, the sameShall be complied with, subject to the petitionerundertaking before this Court that no objection will beraised relating to the limitation for issuance of noticeunder Section-143(2) of the Act and for framing the consequential assessment in the event if it is found thatthe petitioner is liable to pay the tax. 5Heard the learned counsel for the parties|and perused the material on record. | consequential assessment in the event if it is found thatthe petitioner is liable to pay the tax. 5Heard the learned counsel for the parties|and perused the material on record. | 6. In view of the submissions made by thelearned counsel for the parties as aforesaid, this Courtis of the considered opinion that the returns filed by theassessee was wrongly declared by the Income taxDepartment as invalid return under Section-139(9) ofthe Act. It 1s on the advise of the department anapplication under Section-119(2)(b) was filed to condonethe delay in filing the returns. The said application has_been rejected by the third respondent without providingan opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, whichconstrained the petitioner to approach this Court. It was.obligatory on the part of the Department to scrutinizewhether the returns filed by the petitioner was well within time. As observed by the third respondent as perAnnexure-J to the writ petition, the time now havingbeen lapsed for scrutinizing the returns, this Courtdeems it proper to direct respondent No.2 to scrutinizethe returns and if the petitioner is entitled to a refund,an appropriate order shall be passed accordingly. [|However, the learned counsel appearing forthe petitioner undertakes before this Court that in theevent the assessment proceedings has to be completedby issuing notices under the Act, the assessee shall not —raise any objection on the aspect of limitation. The saidundertaking is placed on record. | 8.|With the aforesaid observation, the writpetition stands disposed of, by quashing the Annexures-D, G and J. Respondent No.2 shall scrutinize thereturns filed by the petitioner relating to the assessmentyear 2011-2012 within a period of eight weeks from the ;61/�3C�5/8/201�3C�8/512C2/;�830@�3C�1.27�35;/5�64;�0677� /�35;/57�24�68835;648/�A21.�96A�24�1./�92:.1�3C�1./�3B7/5?612347�<6;/�6B3?/�� ��� �����������