Wp/713/2023 Of Ranka Park Jain Sangh Trust v. The Income Tax Officer (Exemptions)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19 DAY OF JANUARY, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD -WRIT PETITION NO. 713 OF 2023 (TIT) BETWEEN: THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TOQUASH THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148(A)(B) OF THE ACT DATED 18.3.2022 OF ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 BY THE R1 BEARING DIN AND NOTICE NO. ITBA/AST/F/148A (SCN)/ 2021-22/ 1041008910 (1) HEREIN MARKED AS ANNEXURE A1. QUASH THE ORDER DATED 29.03.2022 PASSED UNDER SECTION 148(A)(D) OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 BY THE R1 BEARING DIN AND NOTICE NO. ITBA/AST/F/148A/2021-22/1041901554(1) HEREIN MARKED AS ANNEXURE A2. QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 29.03.2022 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 BY THE R1 BEARING DIN AND NOTICE NO. ITBA/AST/S/148-1/2021-22/1041903422(1) HEREIN MARKED AS ANNEXURE A3. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER The petitioner has called in question the notice dated 18.03.2022 [Annexure-A1] under Section 148A[b] of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short, ‘the IT Act’] and the subsequent order dated 29.03.2022 [Annexure-A2] under Section 148A[d] of the IT Act. These impugned notice and order pertain to the assessment years 2015-16. The petitioner has also impugned the notice dated 29.03.2022 [Annexure-A3] under Section 148A of the IT Act. 2.Sri. S Annamalai, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the notice under Section 148A[b] of the IT Act must fail because the information as per Annexure-A1 appended to this notice cannot be construed as information defined under explanation [1] to Section 148 of the IT Act. The information as appended to this notice reads as under: “A Cash deposit of Rs. 95.00/- lakhs during the financial Year 2014-15 relevant Assessment Year of 2015-16 and trust has not filed the Return of Income for the Assessment Year 2015-16.” 3.Sri. K V Aravind, the learned counsel for the respondents, submits that the contention that the afore information lacks material details is hyper technical and not sustainable in view of the details in the subsequent order under Section 148A[d] of the IT Act, but to ensure that there is no precipitation on this score, Sri. K V Aravind submits that additional information would be given to the petitioner and this Court may enable adjudication on such informationafter due opportunity to the petitioner to file a response. 4.This Court must accept this submission in view of the undeniable position that any informationwhich is part of the order under Section 148A[d] of the IT Act cannot be read into the contents of notice under Section 148A[b] of the IT Act for obvious reasons. In the scheme that is now introduced by the current regime, there must be an opportunity of hearing based on the information which would be the reason for commencement of the proceedings under Section 148 of the IT Act before adjudication. Hence the following: ORDER The petition is allowed, and the impugned notice dated 18.03.2022 [Annexure-A1] and the subsequent order dated 29.03.2022 [Annexure-A2] under Section 148A[d] of the IT Act and the next notice dated 29.03.2022 [Annexure-A3] are quashed with liberty to the respondents to furnish additional information for compliance with the requirements in law and to extend an opportunity of hearing as contemplated under Section 148A[b] of the IT Act before adjudication under Section 148A[d] thereof. Sd/- JUDGE