Wp/33221/2024 Of Gmr Enterprises Private Limited v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

Digitally signedbyMARIGANGAIAHPREMAKUMARILocation: HIGHCOURT OFKARNATAKA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5 DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT -WRIT PETITION NO. 33221 OF 2024 (TIT) BETWEEN: GMR ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED (SUCCESSOR TO GMR HOLDINGS PVT. LTD, SINCE AMALGAMATED) UNDER COMPANY ACT, 1956 REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR HAVING ITS ADDRESS AT NO.25/1 SKIP HOUSE, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA - 560 025. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BALRAM R RAO, ADV.) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(1)(1), BANGALORE, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6 BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE - 560 095. 2. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE 3, BENGALURU 2 FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6 BLOCK, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU -560 095. OF INCOME TAX, RANGE 3, BENGALURU 2 FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6 BLOCK, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU -560 095. 3. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 3, BENGALURU 5 FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6 BLOCK, OF INCOME TAX - 3, BENGALURU 5 FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6 BLOCK, - 2 - WP No. 33221 of 2024 NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU 560 095. (BY SRI. M THIRUMALESH, ADV.) …RESPONDENTS THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO I. DIRECTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, CALLING FOR THE RECORDS OF THE PETITIONERS CASE AND AFTER EXAMINING THE LEGALITY AND VALIDITY THEREOF BE PLEASED TO QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148A(B) OF THE ACT DATED 08.08.2024 VIE DIN AND NOTICE NO.ITBA/AST/F/148A(SCN)/2024-25/1067426686(1) (ANNEXURE-J), ORDER UNDER SECTION 148A(D) DATED 26.08.2024 IN DIN AND NOTICE NO.ITBA/AST/F/148A/2024-25/1067971284(1) (ANNEXURE-L) AND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE DATED 26.08.2024 IN DIN AND NOTICE NO.ITBA/AST/S/148_1/2024-25/1067972068(1) (ANNEXURE-M) FOR THE AY 2018-19 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 Learned counsel Sri.M.Thirumalesh accepts notice for respondents. 2. Heard learned counsel Sri.Balaram R. Rao for petitioner and learned counsel Sri.M.Thirumalesh for respondents. Perused the writ petition papers. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the order passed under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘1961 Act’) on the ground that the objections filed to the notice under Clause (b) of Section 148A of 1961 Act is not considered. Learned counsel would submit that Annexure-J notice dated 08.08.2024 under Section 148A(b) of 1961 Act was issued to the petitioner calling upon to show cause as to why notice under Section 148 of 1961 Act should not be issued and asking him to file objections on or before 19.08.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner filed objections on 28.08.2024 whereas the impugned order is passed on 26.08.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the objections was ready by 27.08.2024 he could not upload the same since 26.08.2024 was Krishna Janmashtami and assesse’s office was on holiday. It is also submitted that the petitioner-company is merged with the erstwhile petitioner-company and notice issued is to the erstwhile company. Therefore, there was no proper notice to the petitioner. 4. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.M.Thirumalesh is not in a position to dispute the position that Section 148A(b) notice was issued to the erstwhile company since the PAN number was wrongly mentioned. However, he submits that taking into the facts and circumstances, prays for passing appropriate order. 4. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.M.Thirumalesh is not in a position to dispute the position that Section 148A(b) notice was issued to the erstwhile company since the PAN number was wrongly mentioned. However, he submits that taking into the facts and circumstances, prays for passing appropriate order. 5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, I am of the view that petitioner needs to be given an opportunity to have his say in the matter before order under Section 148A(b) of 1961 Act is passed. 6. Admittedly, notice is issued on 08.08.2024 though addressed to the petitioner showing PAN number of the erstwhile company; the petitioner uploaded objections on 28.08.2024. By that time, the respondent-Authorities had passed order in terms of Annexure-L on 26.08.2024. Admittedly, the impugned order is without objections by the petitioner. Since the substantial right of the petitioner is involved, petitioner ought to be given an opportunity to have his say in the matter. Hence, the following: ORDER a) Impugned order at Annexure-L bearing No.ITBA/AST/F/148A/2024-25/1067971284(1) dated 26.08.2024 is quashed. b) The respondent-Authority is directed to consider the objections filed by the petitioner consider the objections filed by the petitioner as at Annexure-K dated 27.08.2024 and pass appropriate order. c) With the above, writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE NC CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26