Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Aradayalli Nirvanappa Ashwin vs The Principal Commissioner Of on 18 September, 2024

Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar

Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar

                                                     -1-
                                                                  NC: 2024:KHC:38289
                                                               WP No.23112 of 2024




                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                               DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
                                                    BEFORE
                               THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
                                   WRIT PETITION NO.23112 OF 2024 (T-IT)
                   BETWEEN:

                   ARADAYALLI NIRVANAPPA ASHWIN
                   SON OF A.S. NIRVANAPPA
                   AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
                   76, SHRI GURUKRUPA
                   SHARADAMMA LAYOUT
                   SOMINAKOPPA ROAD
                   SHIVAMOGGA 577204
                   KARNATAKA, INDIA
                   AADHAR NO. 7494 3947 7463

                                                                           ...PETITIONER
                   (BY SRI. GANESH VISHWNATH SHANDAGE, ADV.,)
Digitally signed
by RUPA V
Location: HIGH     AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA          1.     THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF
                          INCOME-TAX, BENGALURU-1
                          BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD
                          6TH BLOCK, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE KORAMANGALA,
                          BENGALURU 560 095
                          KARNATAKA.

                   2.     THE INCOME TAX OFFICER
                          ITO WARD 1, AAYAKAR BHAVAN
                          TAMATKAL ROAD, MEDEHALLY
                          CHITRADURGA 577502, KARNATAKA.

                   3.     ASSESSEMENT UNIT
                          INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT/
                          INCOME TAX OFFICER
                          NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE
                          MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ROOM NO.401
                          2ND FLOOR, E RAMP
                          JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM
                          DELHI 110003.
                                                                      ...RESPONDENTS
                   (BY SRI. Y.V. RAVI RAJ, ADV.,)
                                     -2-
                                                       NC: 2024:KHC:38289
                                                   WP No.23112 of 2024




      THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE R-1 BEARING DIN AND LETTER NO.
ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-25/1067579225(1)         DTD.       13.08.2024       HEREIN
ENCLOSED AND MARKED AS ANNX-A AS BEING MANIFESTLY ILLEGAL,
INVALID, NULL AND VOID, UNJUST, UNFAIR, ARBITRARY, IRRATIONAL
AND VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14 AND 19 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA. DIRECTION AS THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT, AS
CONSEQUENTIAL        RELIEF,     RESTRAINING        R-1     AND     2     FROM
PRECIPITATING     ANY    COERCIVE         RECOVERY        PROCEEDINGS       TO
RECOVER THE ENTIRE DISPUTED DEMAND OF RS. 55,66,142/- TILL
DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX (APPEALS) & ETC.

      THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:



CORAM:     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

                               ORAL ORDER

In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

"(i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari, or such other Writ, Order or direction in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari, quashing and setting aside the Impugned Order passed by the Respondent No.1 bearing DIN & Letter No. ITBA/COM/17/2024-25/1067579225(1) dated 13.08.2024 herein enclosed and marked as Annexure-A, as being manifestly illegal, invalid, null & void, unjust, unfair, arbitrary, irrational and violative of Article 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India;
-3-

NC: 2024:KHC:38289 WP No.23112 of 2024

(ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus, or such other Writ, Order or direction, as this Honourable Court may deem fit, as consequential relief, restraining Respondent No.1 & 2 form precipitating any coercive recovery proceedings to recover the entire disputed demand of Rs,55,66,142/- till disposal of the appeal filed before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals); and

(iii) Pass such other or further orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interests of justice and equity, including the costs of this writ petition."

2. Heard.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that aggrieved by the assessment order dated 22.03.2024 and subsequent notices, the petitioner has filed an appeal on 21.04.2024 before respondent No.1-Appellate Authority which is pending consideration. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner filed an application seeking stay of further proceedings pursuant to the order of the Assessing Officer and respondent No.1 proceeded to pass the impugned order allowing the application and granting stay subject to depositing 20% of the outstanding demand on or before 21.08.2024. In this contest, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order apart from being an -4- NC: 2024:KHC:38289 WP No.23112 of 2024 unreasoned and non speaking order, is also contrary to Circulars issued by the respondent-Central Board of Direct Taxes as well as the following judgments:

i. Flipkart India (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT; [2017] 79 taxmann.com 159 (Karn).
ii. Monarch vs.Income-tax Officer WRIT PETITION No.4952/2020 (T-IT) dated 04.03.2020.
iii. ITC vs. CCE, 2005 (184) ELT 347 (All).
iv. Ravi Gupta vs. Commissioner Sales Tax (2009) 22 VST 529; (2009) E.L.T.3 (SC).
v. Deloitte Consulting India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2), Mumbai & Ors. In W.P.No.152/2013.
vi. Jain Cycle Spares and Co., Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax and Others reported in 267 ITR.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned order and submits that there is no merit in the submission and the same is liable to be dismissed.
5. A perusal of the material on record, in particular the application for stay at Annexure-W dated 01.06.2024 will clearly indicates that various contentions including the aforesaid Circulars and judgments which has been relied upon by the petitioner in -5- NC: 2024:KHC:38289 WP No.23112 of 2024 support of the request for stay; however, respondent No.1 has neither considered nor appreciated the various contentions and submissions made by the petitioner and has proceeded to pass the impugned non speaking, unreasoned, cryptic, and laconic order without any application of mind, thereby violating principles of natural justice and warranting interference in the present petition.

Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order at Annexure-A deserves to be set aside and the matter remitted back to the respondent No.1-Appellate Authority for reconsideration of the application at Annexure-W dated 01.05.2024 submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law within a stipulated time frame.

6. In the result:

ORDER i. Petition is hereby allowed.
ii. Impugned order at Annexure-A is hereby set aside.
iii. Matter is remitted back to respondent No.1- Appellate Authoirty for reconsideration of application at Annexure-W in accordance with law based in mind the various contentions, -6- NC: 2024:KHC:38289 WP No.23112 of 2024 Circulars, Judgment etc., submitted by the petitioner as stated supra.
iv. Petitioner undertakes to appear before respondent No.1-Appellate Authority on 30.09.2024 without awaiting further notice from the respondent No.1.

v. Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to file additional pleadings, documents etc., shall be considered by respondent No.1- Appellate Authority who shall provide sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and proceed further in accordance with law.

vi. Respondent No.1-Appellate Authority is directed to dispose of the appeal within a period of one month from 30.09.2024.

Sd/-

(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33