Wp/4303/2018 Of M/S Ilms Builders Pvt Ltd v. Deuty 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.4303 OF 2018 (TIT) BETWEEN: M/S. ILMS BUILDERS PVT. LTD., NO.103, EDEN PARK NO.20,VITTAL MALLYA ROAD,BBNGALURU — 560 OO1.REPRBSEBENTBD BY ITS DIRBECT _. PRHTITIONBR (BY MS. SWATHI ASHOK & SMT. ANURADHA 8.R., ADVOCATES) AND: 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCIRCLE 3(1)(1)|BBRBNGALURU - 560 OO1 2. GOVERNMENT OF INDIAMINISTRY OF FINANCEKINCOME TAX DEPARTMENT7TH FLOR, INCOME TAX OFFICE,BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD,KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 OO1..REPRESENTED BY [TS COMMISSIONER —. RESPONDENTS. (BY SRI. K.V.ARAVIND, ADVOCATE FOR RI & R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 6!22 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE.ASSKSSMBNT ORDER PASSKHD BY THR IST RESPONDENTDATED 2292.12.201/ FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-1(ANNE XURE-A); AND ETC. THIS WRIT PRTITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY|HBARING IN ‘B’ GROUPTHIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THERFOLLOWING: 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 petition 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 videReply dated 20.12.2017, a copy whereof is at Annexure-G;and, b)the contention that petitioner has an alternateremedy of statutory appeal and therefore, no relief can beeranted in the writ petition cannot be accepted since there isan apparent violation of principles of natural justice apartfrom demonstrable non-application of mind to the materialborne out from the record. In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds;the writ of certiorari issues quashing the impugned order;matter is remitted to the first respondent for considerationafresh after adverting to the reply sent by the petitioner, inaccordance 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|