Wp/29568/2024 Of Mr Rizwan Ali Khan v. The Income Tax Officer

Digitally signedbyMARIGANGAIAHPREMAKUMARILocation: HIGHCOURT OFKARNATAKA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12 DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT -WRIT PETITION NO. 29568 OF 2024 (TIT) BETWEEN: MR. RIZWAN ALI KHAN AGE 65 YEARS, NO.59/60, 1 FLOOR, 4 A CROSS, OPPOSITE AMB PUBLIC SCHOOL, P AND T COL. KAVALBYRASANDRA, BANGALORE NORTH, BANGALORE – 560032. PRESENTLY AT:NO.59/60, 1 FLOOR, 4 A CROSS, OPPOSITE AMB PUBLIC SCHOOL, KANAKA NAGAR, R T NAGAR POST, BNAGALORE-560032, PAN: . …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVI SHANKAR S. V., ADV.) AND: 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(3)(1) BANGALORE – 560032. 2. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1 THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, C R BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE – 560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DILIP M & SRI THIRUMALESH, ADVS. FOR R1 & R2) NC: 2025:KHC:6193 WP No. 29568 of 2024 THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148A(B) OF THE ACT DATED 31.03.2024 BEARING DIN NO. ITBA/AST/ F/148A(SCN)/2023-24/1063783778(1) ISSUED BY THE R-1 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 HEREIN MARKED AS ANNX-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning Annexure-A, notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘1961 Act’) bearing No.ITBA/AST/F/148A(SCN)/202-24/1063783778(1) dated 31.03.2024 and also order passed under Section 148A(d) of 1961 Act bearing No.ITBA/AST/F/148A-2024-25/1064082140(1) dated 15.04.2024. 2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Ravishankar.S.V., for petitioner and learned counsel Sri.Dilip.M., and - 3 - Sri.M.Thirumalesh, learned counsel for respondents. Perused the writ petition papers. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondents initially issued notice under Section 148A(b) of 1961 Act on 19.03.2022 and passed exparte order. Challenging the said exparte order, petitioner was before this Court in W.P.No.25688/2023 and this Court by order dated 08.01.2024 seaside the exparte order with liberty to the petitioner to file pleadings and documents before the first respondent, which was directed to consider and provide reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and thereafter to proceed in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that subsequently, fresh notice is issued under Section 148A(b) of 1961 Act dated 31.03.2024 and to the said notice, petitioner submitted detailed reply in terms of Annexure-C dated 08.02.2024 enclosing copy of the sale deed and other documents. Learned counsel would submit that without properly appreciating the material placed by the petitioner, first respondent passed order under Section 148A(d) of 1961 Act holding that a sum of Rs.81,48,776/- chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Questioning the said order and notice, petitioner is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel would invite attention of this Court to the order at Annexure-D and submits that Rs.34,00,000/- credited to the respondent-Bank is taken twice and the respondents have arrived at Rs.81,00,000/- to say that the said amount has escaped assessment. Learned counsel also invite attention of this Court to Annexure-C3-bank statement and submits that the petitioner has deposited Rs.34,00,000/- only on 11.06.2014 and there is no other amount credited to the account. Learned counsel would also submit that the petitioner had also submitted that Section 148 proceedings could be initiated only in case of escaped income exceeding Rs.50.00 Lakhs. It is also submitted that the escaped income would not exceed Rs.50.00 Lakhs if the credit of Rs.34,00,000/- for the second time is taken out. 4. Learned counsel would invite attention of this Court to the order at Annexure-D and submits that Rs.34,00,000/- credited to the respondent-Bank is taken twice and the respondents have arrived at Rs.81,00,000/- to say that the said amount has escaped assessment. Learned counsel also invite attention of this Court to Annexure-C3-bank statement and submits that the petitioner has deposited Rs.34,00,000/- only on 11.06.2014 and there is no other amount credited to the account. Learned counsel would also submit that the petitioner had also submitted that Section 148 proceedings could be initiated only in case of escaped income exceeding Rs.50.00 Lakhs. It is also submitted that the escaped income would not exceed Rs.50.00 Lakhs if the credit of Rs.34,00,000/- for the second time is taken out. Thus, learned counsel would pray for allowing the writ petition. 5. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.M.Thirumalesh would submit that the respondents at that relevant point of time, placed reliance on the information submitted by the bank which was misleading. Further, he submits that the respondent-authority had no time to cross-check the information furnished by the bank. In that circumstance, he submits that the authority mistakenly has taken twice the deposit of Rs.34 Lakhs. Thus, he prays for passing appropriate order. 6. The petitioner was before this Court in W.P.No.25688/2023, questioning the ex-parteorder passed under Section 148A(b) of 1961 Act. This Court, by order dated 08.01.2024 quashed the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the respondents for reconsideration from the stage of notice under Section 148A(b) of 1961 Act. The petitioner filed reply under Annexure-C dated 08.02.2024 specifically contending that there are no major other deposits into his bank account apart from Rs.34,00,000/- deposited in terms of the bank statement. The petitioner has also placed on record Annexure-C3/bank statement of the State Bank of India pertaining to petitioner’s account wherein Rs.34,00,000/- is deposited. 7. A perusal of the statement would indicate that the petitioner has deposited Rs.34,00,000/- on 11.06.2014. Except one entry with regard to deposit of Rs.34,00,000/-, no other entry is forthcoming from the bank account statement as at Annexure-C3. But, perusal of the impugned order at Annexure-A1 dated 15.04.2024 passed under Section 148A(d) of 1961 Act indicates taking note of credit entry of Rs.34,00,000/- twice. Because of taking deposit of Rs.34,00,000/- twice instead of once, the respondents-Authorities have come to the conclusion that there is escaped income of Rs.81,48,776/- for the assessment year in question. There is total non-application of mind on the part of the respondents, while NC: 2025:KHC:6193 passing the impugned order dated 15.04.2014 under Section 148A(d) of 1961 Act. If the respondents-Authorities had looked into the objections of the petitioner at Annexure-C dated 08.02.2024 along with Annexure-C3/ bank statement, the respondents-Authorities could not have come to the conclusion which is arrived at in the impugned order. 8. On the other hand, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that information obtained from the Bank by the respondents-Authorities was misleading and the Authorities had no time to cross-check the information furnished by the Bank. 9. In the light of the above, the following order: a)Writ petition is allowed in part. b) Annexure-A1, order bearing No.ITBA/AST/F/ 148A/2024-25/1064082140(1) dated 15.04.2024 passed under Section 148A(d) of 1961 Act as well as Annexure-A2, bearing No.ITBA/AST/S/148_1/2024-25/ 1064082530(1) dated 15.04.2024 are quashed. c) Respondent No.1 is directed to take note of the objections of the petitioner along with documents and also the observations made above and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within three months from today. All contentions of the parties are left open. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE NC CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24