Wp/47538/2014 Of Kamashetty v. The Income-Tax Officer

IN THR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BBNGALURU DATED THIS THE 14[‘T]DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BRHRORE THR HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL ;W.P.No.47538/2014 (TIT) BETWEEN Kamashetty,S/o Kallappa|Aged about 38 years,Proprietor of Shetty Lubricants,1947/7, Near RajbhavanP.B.Road, Near New Court Circle,Davanagere,Davanagere District. |... PETITIONE (By Sri Shanthaveeranna K.Abbiger1, Adv.) AND 1.The Income Tax Officer,| Ward-2, Park View Building, a[)']Main, P.J.Extension,Davanagere-O2. 2 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal),C.R.Building Annexe, 1[&)]floor,Navanagar, Hubli-25.C.R.Building Annexe, 1[&)]floor,Navanagar, Hubli-25. 3,The Income Tax Officer (CPC) Centralized Processing Centre,Income Tax Department, Post Bag No.1,|Electronics City, Bangalore-560 100. |.. RESPONDENTSCentralized Processing Centre,Income Tax Department, Post Bag No.1,|Electronics City, Bangalore-560 100. |.. RESPONDENTS (By Sri K.V.Aravind, Adv. ) ao This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of theConstitution of India, praying to quash the impugnedAnnexure-A notice dated 8.9.2014 issued u/s 154/159 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2009-10 issuedby the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Davanagere and etc. This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing ‘B’ Groupthis day, the Court made the following: ORDER 1.Order dated 16.09.2014 passed by the l[&)]respondent |exercising power and jurisdiction under Section 194 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) thereby proceeding torectify the alleged mistake said to have been committed by the|assessee and holding that net tax payable by the petitioner was_at the rate of Rs./7/,990/- for the assessment year 2009-10 iscalled in question in this writ petition by the petitioner. | 2.The main contention urged by the learned counsel for thepetitioner is that 1[&)]respondent has proceeded on the basis|that aggregate income declared in the return of incomesubmitted by the petitioner through online did not correctly|reflect the amount under the head profit and gains from the}business/profession inasmuch as in the tabular column)pertaining to computation of total income against the said headinstead of declaring the amount as Rs.4,90,858/- a sum of Rs.2,39,986/- had been declared. According to the petitioner,|the very premises on which the 1[&)]respondent has proceeded iserroneous inasmuch as the l[&)]respondent has no power to.amend or tamper with the declaration made in the return ofincome submitted by the petitioner. It is next contended by thelearned counsel for the petitioner that provisions of sub-section(1A) of Section 154 of the Act clothes the Assessing Officer withpower to rectify the mistake apparent from the record providedthe said matter had not been considered and decided in anyproceeding by way of appeal or revision. It is, therefore, urgedthat as the matter had been already considered in appeal by theCommissioner of Income Tax Appeals vide his order dated26.06.2014, it was not open for the 1[&)]respondent to exercisepowers under Section 154(1A) for rectification of the so called|mistake. | 3.In response to this contention, learned counsel appearingfor the respondent — revenue urges that impugned order was|necessitated on account of the mistake crept in the amount!mentioned in ‘Part B — TI Computation of total income’. He)invites the attention of the Court to the mistake in thecalculation whereunder the total income at Column No.12 in va 3.In response to this contention, learned counsel appearingfor the respondent — revenue urges that impugned order was|necessitated on account of the mistake crept in the amount!mentioned in ‘Part B — TI Computation of total income’. He)invites the attention of the Court to the mistake in thecalculation whereunder the total income at Column No.12 in va the said table is shown as 1,80,820 and net agricultural incomeis shown as nil and thereafter in Column No.14 net aggregateincome (12 + 13) is arrived at Rs.4,31,/00/-. While admitting|that there is some mistake in the calculation so made, learnedcounsel for the respondent attributes the same to the assessee,whereas learned counsel for the petitioner strongly contends_that it has nothing to do with the assessee and is the creationof the 1[&)]respondent. Be that as it may. The fact remains thatthe 1[&)]respondent has not considered the said question, thoughthe assessee has categorically stated as under:- “As against the said aggregate income declared|by the assessee at Rs.1,80,820/-, the total incomebeing computed invoking power u/s 143(1) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961, without assigning any basis,material or evidence, Centralized Processing Center,Income Tax Department, Bangalore determined atRs.4,31,700/- which was challenged in the asessee’sright of appeal u/s 246(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act,1961. The assessee’s said appeal was allowed by theappellate authority accepting the assessee incomewhich was declared at Rs.1,80,820/-.” 4 iHe further contends that the power under Section 154.could not have been invoked when the very order was the 5 subject matter of appeal and the Appellate Authority has!considered the same. | 5.The 1[&)]respondent has not examined the contention|urged by the petitioner. He has simply concluded that the)contentions were not acceptable. The legal contention urged|referring to the jurisdiction to invoke the power under Section154 of the Income Tax Act was required to be addressed by the1[&)]respondent. Petitioner is also required to substantiate thefact that e-filed return of income did not contain the mistake,but the mistake was attributable to the action of the respondent — authority. The matter, therefore, requires to be examinedafresh. Impugned order which does not deal with thejurisdictional issue raised before it deserves to be set aside. | 5.|Hence, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order is setaside. ‘The case is remitted for fresh consideration to the 1[&)]respondent. 1[&)]respondent shall notify the petitioner hereinand thereafter pass an order afresh. PKS| Sd/-.JUDGE|