Wp/50620/2019 Of Mr Shaik Madar Amanulla v. Income Tax Officer Ward 4 (3)(3)

IN THR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THER 1 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019. BEFORE: THR HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICK S.SUJATHA ;WRIT PETITION No.50620/2019 (TIT) BETWEEN: MR. SHAIK MADAR AMANULLA»/O SRI SHAIK MADAR, AGKD ABOUT 46 YEARSNO.28/3 A-B, CHUNCHANGATTA ROAD,YELECHANAHALLI, J.P.NAGAR POST, KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD,BANGALORE 560 078, KARNATAKA. INDIA. .. PETITIONER |BY SRI SHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI ANNAMALAI S &BHAIRAV KUTTAIAH ADV.} AND: INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 4(3) (3)BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD! BLOCK, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE,KORAMANGALA,BENGALURUPIN CODE 560 095KARNATAKA| .. RESPONDEN |BY SRI K .V. ARAVIND & SRI DILIP, ADV. || -9.- THIS WRIT PETITION [IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &22/ OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE|THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 139(9) OF THE INCOMETAX ACT, 19601 BY THE RESPONDENT IN LETTER DATED24 O9.2019ANNEXURE-AANT)TO|SETASIDE.THEASSEBSSMEBENT ORDER PASSED BY THR RESPONDENT UNDSECTION 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT DATED 27.09.2019.VIDE ORDER AND NOTICK OF DEMAND [SSUBD UNDER)SECTION 156 OF THR ACT AND CMPUTATION SHEET AS)RHRKFBERRED AS ANNBKXURE- THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,|THER COURT MADEB THR FOLLOWING ORDER sri K.V. Aravind, learned counsel is permitted to.accept notice for the respondent. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order passedunder Section 139(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961( ‘Act’for short) as well as Annexure-B passed under Section144 of the Act dated 27.09.2019 and notice of demand|issued under Section 156 of the Act. 3. The petitioner is an individual assessee. It issubmitted that the petitioner filed return of income on16.09.2019 declaring the total income of Rs.9,67,260/-.. However, the respondent has passed a non-speaking order on 24.09.2019 under Section 139(9) of the Actwithout issuing show-cause notice and treated thereturn filed by the petitioner as invalid and non-est inlaw. 4. Sri A Shankar, learned senior counsel for thepetitioner would submit that no specific show-causenotice was issued to make best - judgment assessmentunder Section 144 of the Act, in addition to the non-speaking order passed under Section 139(9) of the Act. o. Learned counsel for the revenue justifying theorder impugned, would submit that notice under Subsection(1) of Section 142 was indeed issued as perAnnexures-C, D and F. The petitioner has filed reply tothe said show cause notices. Considering the reply, theassessment order under Section 144 of the Act has beenpassed. Hence no interference is warranted. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for theparties and perusing the material on record, it is_CX-facie —apparent that no intimation was issued before|passing the order under Section 139(9) of the Act. Itisneedless to observe that issuing of notice/intimation is ©;ine qua nonfor passing the order under Section 139(9)of the Act. Similarly no show-cause notice was issued —under Section 144 of the Act specifically, to pass thebest — judgment assessment. © 7. Inthe circumstances, the orders impugned arehit by the principles of natural justice. Hence, thepetitioner shall consider the orders passed undersection 139(9) and 144 of the Act as show causenotices. 8. The petitioner shall file reply/objections to the said show-cause notices within a period of four weeksfrom the date of receipt of a copy of the order. -5- OQ AftersilbmissionoT|theobjections, respondent-Assessing Officer shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law inan expedite manner. 10. In view of the aforesaid observations, demandnotice issued under Section 156 of the Act, part ofAnnexure-B dated 27.9.2019 is quashed. | With the aforesaid terms, the writ petition standsdismissed. %;AK Sd/-.JUDGE.