Wp/6214/2023 Of Ultimate Civic Build Tech v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

Digitally signedby NARASIMHAMURTHYVANAMALALocation: HIGHCOURT OFKARNATAKA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23 DAY OF MARCH, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD -WRIT PETITION NO. 6214 OF 2023 (TIT) BETWEEN: ULTIMATE CIVIC BUILD TECH, A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM, REPRESETNED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SRI. R. HARI PRASAD, S/O SRI. T. RAMACHADNRA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OFFICE AT CU-003, ULTIMATE SIGNATURE, 98/2, 99/2, ISRO LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560064. (A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932) …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S. ANNAMALAI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, NO.1, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE 56001. CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, NO.1, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE 56001. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(3)(1), WARD 6(3)(1), BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6 BLOCK, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE - 560095. KORAMANGALA BANGALORE - 560095. 3. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (CENTRAL), CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, NO.1, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. OF INCOME-TAX (CENTRAL), CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, NO.1, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. 4. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX (INVETIGATION), CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, NO.1, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. INCOME TAX (INVETIGATION), CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, NO.1, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. (BY SRI. M.DILIP, ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SEC 148A(B) OF THE ACT DATED 30/05/2022 BEARING DIN AND LETTER NO. ITBA/COM/F/17/2022-23/1043255904(1) ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 HEREIN MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A1; QUASH THE ORDER DATED 25/07/2022 PASSED UNDER SEC 148A(d) OF THE ACT BEARING DIN AND ORDER NO. ITBA/COM/F/17/2022-23/1044050785(1) ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 HEREIN MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A2 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER The petitioner has called in question the following notices and orders, which relate to the assessment year 2015-16: a) Notice dated 30.05.2022 [Anneuxure-A1] issued by the first respondent under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short, 'the I.T.Act'], the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short, 'the I.T.Act'], b) Order dated 25.07.2022 [Annexure-A2] by the first respondent under Section 148A(d) of the I.T.Act. I.T.Act. c) Notices dated 25.07.2022 and 25.06.2021 [Annexures - A3 and A4] issued by the first respondent under Section 148 of the I.T.Act. [Annexures - A3 and A4] issued by the first respondent under Section 148 of the I.T.Act. Sri. S.Annamalai, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri. M.Dilip, the learned counsel for the respondents, are heard for final disposal of the petition. The petitioner's preliminary grievance with the impugned adjudication order dated 25.07.2022 and the issuance of notice dated 25.07.2022 is essentially premised in the assertion that the petitioner has filed its response after receipt of the notice dated 30.05.2022, but the adjudication order is on the ground that the petitioner has not filed any response. This assertion remains factually un-controverted and in that event, this Court must opine that there is lack of application of mind. The petition must be favoured on this limited ground leaving open all other grounds to be urged before the first respondent as would be relevant for a just and reasoned order. The petitioner's preliminary grievance with the impugned adjudication order dated 25.07.2022 and the issuance of notice dated 25.07.2022 is essentially premised in the assertion that the petitioner has filed its response after receipt of the notice dated 30.05.2022, but the adjudication order is on the ground that the petitioner has not filed any response. This assertion remains factually un-controverted and in that event, this Court must opine that there is lack of application of mind. The petition must be favoured on this limited ground leaving open all other grounds to be urged before the first respondent as would be relevant for a just and reasoned order. At this stage, Sri. S.Annamalai submits that in the light of the grounds urged in the writ petition which touches upon the jurisdiction to issue notice, the petitioner may be reserved with liberty to file additional submissions. The adjudication order under Section 148A(d) of the I.T.Act must be effective and therefore, the petitioner must be granted liberty in this regard. For the foregoing, the following: ORDER The petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 25.07.2022 under Section 148A(d) of the I.T.Act (Annexure-A2) and the consequential notice dated 25.07.2022 (Annexure-A3) under Section 148 of the I.T.Act are quashed and the proceedings are restored to the first respondent - the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - for reconsideration with liberty to the petitioner to file additional pleading. It would be needless to observe that this Court has not otherwise commented on the merits of reassessment proceedings. SD/- JUDGE RB