Wp/4525/2017 Of Rms H B Manjula v. The Income Tax Officer

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18 DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020. BEFORE THR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT| ;WRIT PETITION NO. 4525 OF 2017 (TIT) BRTWEHRERMS H B MANJULA|W/O MR P VIKARAM,|AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,R/AT VARSHA,OPP HORTICULLTURAL OFFICE,CHITRADURGA-5 //502 ... PETITIONER(BY SRI. HARISH V 8S, ADVOCATE) AND: THE INCOME TAX OFFICKBRWARI)-1TAMATAKAL ROAD, MEDEHALLI,CHITRADURGA-5/7/502 _ RESPONDENT(BY SRI. K V ARAVIND, ADVOCTE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226)AND 22927 OF THR CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TOQUASH THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BYRESPONDENT U/S 143(3 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961.DATED 30.12.2016 FOR THR ASSKSSMBNT YBAR 2014-15.I.E., ANNEX-C AND CONSEQUENTIAL NOTICE OF DEMANDISSUED BY RESPONDENT DATED 30.12.2016 FOR THE!ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-195 I.E., ANNEX-C1. THISPRTITION|COMINGON|KOR|PRELIMINARYHEARING IN ‘B’ GROUPTHIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE.FOLLOWING:- ORDER Petitioner an assessee under the [Income Jax Act isinvoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court calling inquestion the Assessment Order dated 30.12.2016 made by the respondent herein u/s.143 of the Income Tax Act,1961 for the Assessment Year 2014-15 at Annexure-A andconsequentialDemandNotice dated30.12.9016.at|Annexure-C. 2. <Aiter service of notice, the respondent having|entered appearance through its Sr.Panel Counsel, resiststhe writ petition making submission in justification of theimpugned order, the learned Panel Counsel also contendsthat the petitioner can avail the statutory remedy of appealand that he has not offered any plausible explanation forbypassing such aremedy. | 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the partiesand having perused the petition papers, this Courtdeclines to interfere in the matter, however it grants ashort reprieve to the petitioner for the following reasons: (a) the contention of the petitioner-assessee that|there is violation of principles of natural justice inasmuchas certain iniormation on which the impugned order isstructured was not made available to him and that had itbeen made available, he would have made his submissionalong with necessary documents to rebut the version thatarguably emerges from the said iniormation can be examinedbytheAppellateAuthority, namely,Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who will be in abetter position to appreciate the intricacies involved; thepetitioner has not offered any plausible explanation as towhy he cannot avail the statutory appeal; the argumentthat he may be required to deposit some amount as a pre-condition for maintaining appeal is a feeble ground torbypassing such appeal; (b) the apprehension of the petitioner that appealwould take its own time to reach the terminal point andthat in the meanwhile coercive action may be initiated,against him can be addressed by interdicting the coerciveaction under the impugned order & the demand notice, tillafter petitioner files the appeal within the period to beprescribed by this Court and his application for stay of theimpugned order is considered by the jurisdictionalappellate authority, as rightly pointed out by the learnedsr. Panel Counsel for the Revenue; and, (c) the learned counsel for the petitioner banks|upon a Division Bench decision dated 14,08.2015 in WritAppealNo.218/2015(T-IT)betweenM/s.KOTHARIMETALS —-vs- INCOME TAX OFFICER in support of his contention that Writ Court can examine the impugnedorders, availability of appellate remedy notwithstanding;the scrutiny of the said decision shows that it was a casewherein re-assessment of income u/s.143 r/w Sec.148 ofthe Act was involved whereas the present writ petitioninvolves regular assessment order where legal parametersfor consideration are very different; therefore the saiddecision does not come to his aid, especially when hisinterest is protected by some interim arrangement, asabove. (c) the learned counsel for the petitioner banks|upon a Division Bench decision dated 14,08.2015 in WritAppealNo.218/2015(T-IT)betweenM/s.KOTHARIMETALS —-vs- INCOME TAX OFFICER in support of his contention that Writ Court can examine the impugnedorders, availability of appellate remedy notwithstanding;the scrutiny of the said decision shows that it was a casewherein re-assessment of income u/s.143 r/w Sec.148 ofthe Act was involved whereas the present writ petitioninvolves regular assessment order where legal parametersfor consideration are very different; therefore the saiddecision does not come to his aid, especially when hisinterest is protected by some interim arrangement, asabove. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is|disposed olf granting liberty to the petitioner to file appealagainst the impugned orders within a period of six weeksand that no coercive action shall be taken under theimpugned orders till after the petitioner files accordinglyappeal and also his application for stay is considered bythe jurisdictional authority in accordance with law. All contentions of the parties are kept open. | No costs. Sd/-|JUDGE