Wp/28393/2023 Of Smt. Tejal Milan Parikh v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

Digitallysigned byNARASIMHAMURTHYVANAMALALocation:HIGH COURTOFKARNATAKA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24 DAY OF JANUARY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR -WRIT PETITION NO. 28393 OF 2023 (TIT) C/W-WRIT PETITION NO. 28120 OF 2023 (TIT) IN WP NO. 28393/2023 BETWEEN: SMT. TEJAL MILAN PARIKH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESIDING AT NO 1081/31 1 FLOOR GOLDEN BLOSSOM 18 A MAIN, 5 BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE – 560010. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAMA MURTHY R.,ADVOCATE) AND: THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE SHARADHA BUILDING SARAF COLONY KHANAPUR ROAD TILAKWADI BELAGAVI – 590006. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.M. DILIP., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TOQUASH THE ORDER OF EX-PARTY PENALTY MADE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 ON 25.03.22 U/S 271(1) (c) OF THE ACT VIDE ITBA/PNL/F/271(1) (c)/2021-22/1041480183(1) ANNEXURE-E. IN WP NO. 28120/2023 BETWEEN: SMT. TEJAL MILAN PARIKH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESIDING AT NO 1081/31 1 FLOOR GOLDEN BLOSSOM 18 A MAIN, 5 BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE – 560010. (BY SRI. RAMA MURTHY R.,ADVOCATE) AND: …PETITIONER THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE SHARADHA BUILDING SARAF COLONY KHANAPUR ROAD TILAKWADI BELAGAVI – 590006. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.M. DILIP., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF EX-PARTY PENALTY MADE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 ON 25.03.22 U/S 271(1) (c) OF THE ACT VIDE ITBA/PNL/F/271(1) (c)/2021-22/1041478132(1) ANNEXURE-F. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER In these petitions, petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned penalty orders at Annexure-E dated 25.03.2022 in W.P. No.28393/2023 and Annexure-F dated 25.03.2022 in W.P. No.28120/2023 passed by the respondent and for other reliefs. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 3. The material on record discloses that the common petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned ex-parte penalty order for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16 passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is relevant to state that the ex-parte assessment order themselves have been quashed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.26500/2023 and connected matters vide order dated 21.12.2023. The operative portion of the said order reads as under:- ORDER “a) The petitions are allowed in part and the impugned Assessment Orders are quashed. impugned Assessment Orders are quashed. b) The proceedings are restored to the stage of the notice under Section 142(1) of the IT Act with liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate reply with necessary documents. stage of the notice under Section 142(1) of the IT Act with liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate reply with necessary documents. c) The Petitioner shall be at liberty to file their reply with necessary documents with the respondent on or before 29.02.2024.” their reply with necessary documents with the respondent on or before 29.02.2024.” 4. In the light of the undisputed fact that the ex-parte assessment order itself has been set aside by this Court in the aforesaid W.P.No.26500/2023, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned ex-parte penalty order would also necessarily have to be quashed. 5. In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER (i) Petitions are hereby allowed. NC: 2024:KHC:3331WP No. 28393 of 2023 C/W WP No. 28120 of 2023 (ii) The impugned penalty orders at Annexure-E dated 25.03.2022 in W.P. No.28393/2023 and Annexure-F dated 25.03.2022 in W.P. No.28120/2023 passed by the respondent are hereby quashed. SD/- JUDGE AN/-