Wp/63236/2016 Of M/S Mindtree Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATBD THIS THER 2 DAY OF APRIL, 2018| BEFORE: THR HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICK S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.63236/2016 (T IT) BETWEEN: M/S MINDTREE LIMITEDGLOBAL VILLAGE CAMPUS,MYLASANDRA VILLAGE, RVCE POST, OFF MYSORE ROAD,|BBRENGALURU-560 05(REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER,|SRI.JAGANNATHAN CHAKRAVARTHI, S/O SRI NARASIMHANCK.AGKD ABOUT 43 YEARS. ... PRETITIONBR (BY SRI CHYTHANYA.K.K, ADV.) ANT THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF [INCOME TAXLARGE TAX PAYER UNIT (LTU), CIRCLE-1,_100 FEET RING ROAD,BANASHANKARI III STAGE,BBENGALURU-560 O85. .. RESPONDENT (BY SRI E.LSANMATHI, ADV. FOR SRI.K V ARAVIND, ADV.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND22/ OF THE CONSTITUTIONL OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ASHAR AS THE PEITIIONBER IS CONCHKRNED BY AN APPROPRIAIWRIT OR IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR OTHERWISE, THEIMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSEMENIT YBRB2009-10 UNDER SECTION 147 READ WITH SECTION 143][3] OF -9.- THR JT ACT DTD:8.11.2016 THE SAME [IS ENCLOSED ASANNBXURE-A AND BIC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING|IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- ORDER Petitioner has challenged the order passed undersection 147 r/w 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961(‘Act’ for short), as well as the demand notice issuedunder Section 156 of the Act relating to the assessmentyear 2009-10. 2. The main argument of the learned counselappearing for the petitioner is that objections filed bythe petitioner pursuant to the notice issued undersection 148 of the Act has not been disposed of by therespondent-Authority prior to passing of the impugnedreassessment order by passing a speaking order whichis mandatory in terms of the Judgment of the Hon’bleApex Court in the case ofGKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. —y- [Income tax Officerreported in (2003) 299 ITR 19(SC). Learned counsel also placed reliance on the order -3- of this Court in W.P.No.4679/2018 reported in 2018- TIOL -691- HC-KAR-IT.. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondentdo not dispute the same. 4. In W.P.No.4679/2018 this court placingreliance on the Division Bench Judgment of this courtin the case of M/s Deepak Extrusions Pvt. Ltd. -—v- TheDeputyCommissionerot IncomeTax|1nNW.A.No.1725/2017 (DD 15.3.2017) reported in (2017)TIOL-607-HC- Karnataka-IT has held that passing ofthe assessment order sans disposing of the objectionsraised subsequent to issuance of the notice undersection 148 of the Act is untenable and accordingly, theimpugned assessment order as well as the demandnotice are set-aside. o. In view of the aforesaid, impugned assessmentorder at Annexure-A as well as the demand notice at' Annexure-B cannot be sustained and are accordinglyset-aside. | Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. However, it is observed that the Assessing officer shall be at liberty to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. All rights and contentions of the parties are leit Oper_n In. Sd/-.JUDGE