Wp/4301/2018 Of M/S Mprime Premises Pvt Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BBNGALURU| DATED THIS THE 28 DAY OF JANUARY, 2020 BEFORE THR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT. mWRIT PETITION NO.4301 OF 2018 (TIT)C/WmWRIT PETITION NO.4302 OF 2018 (TIT) IN W.P. NO. 4301/2018: BETWEEN: M/S. MPRIME PREMISES PVT LTD.,NO.103, EDEN PARK NO.20,VITTALMALLYA ROADBBNGALURU - 560 0OO1.REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR . PRHTITIONBR (BY MS. SWATHI ASHOK & SMT. ANURADHA 8.R., ADVOCATES)| AND: 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF [INCOME TAX|CIRCLE 4(1)(2)BBRBNGALURU - 560 OO1 2. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,MINISTRY OF FINANCEKINCOME TAX DEPARTMENT,7TH FLOOR, INCOME TAX OFFICE,BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD,KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 OO1.. —. RESPONDENTS. (BY SRI. K.V.ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 8&22/ OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE.ASSKSSMBNT ORDBR PASSBD BY THR R-1 DTD 22.12.2017 FOR|THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 VIDE ANNEXURE-A; AND ETC. IN W.P.NO.4302 OF 2018 BETWEEN: M/S. MILESTONE PLOT DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,.NO.103, EDEN PARK NO.20,VITTAL MALLYA ROAD,BENGALURU - 560 OO1,.RBEPRBESEBENTBD BY [ITS DIREC ... PETITIONER (BY MS. SWATHI ASHOK & SMT. ANURADHA 8.R., ADVOCATES) AND: 1. DKBPUTY COMMISSIONBR OF INCOMBEB TACIRCLE3 (1) (1),BENGALURU - 560 OO1.. 2. GOVERNMENT OF INDIAMINISTRY OF FINANCE,INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT,7TH FLOOR, INCOME TAX OFFICE,BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD,KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 OO1.. —. RESPONDENTS. (BY SRI. K.V.ARAVIND, ADVOCATE FOR RI & R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &22/ OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THEASSESSMENT ORDER PASSBKED BY THR R-1] DID: 22.12.20FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 |ANNEXURE-P]; AND)ETC.,| THESEWRIT|PRTITIONS|ARECOMINGON|ROR|PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUPM, THIS DAY, THE COURTMADE THR FOLLOWING: ORDER Petitioner-Company being the assessee under theIncome Tax Act, 1961 is invoking the writ jurisdiction of thisCourtgrieving|againsttheAssessmentOrderdated|22.12.2017, a copy whereof is at Annexure-A covering theassessment year 2015-16 and the consequent Notice dated22.12.2017, a copy whereof is at Annexure-B, both issued bythe first respondent. 2 |After service of notice, the respondents havingentered appearance through their Senior Panel Counsel |ori. K.V.Aravind, resist the writ petitions making submissionin justification of impugned order and the notice. 3.|Having heard the learned counsel for the partiesand having perused the petition papers, this Court is of aconsidered opinion that, reprieve needs to be granted to thepetitioner as under and for the following reasons: AQ)the impugned order at Annexure-A proceeds onthe wrong factual premise that the petitioner had not sentexplanation to the notice in question when the original records admittedly reveal that the petitioner had filed one videReplies dated 20.12.2017, copies whereof is at Annexures-J &H; and, b)the contention that petitioner has an alternateremedy of statutory appeal and therefore, no relief can beeranted in these writ petitions cannot be accepted since thereis an apparent violation of principles of natural justice apartfrom demonstrable non-application of mind to the materialborne out from the record. In the above circumstances, these writ petitionssucceed; the Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugnedorders; matter is remitted to the first respondent forconsideration afresh after adverting to the reply sent by thepetitioner, in accordance with law. The period for compliance is three months from the date a copy of this judgment is received by the first respondent. No costs, now. Sd/-JUDGE