Karnataka High Court
Smt Lakshmi Arla Prabhu vs The Income Tax Officer on 24 July, 2024
Author: S Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:28950
WP No. 17393 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
WRIT PETITION NO. 17393 OF 2024 (T-IT)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. LAKSHMI ARLA PRABHU
W/O A. V PRABHU
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/A, NO.7-92, MAIN ROAD,
BANTWAL KASABA VILLAGE,
BANTWAL POST,
BANTWAL TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 219.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SUYOG HERELE E., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,
BMTC BUILDING,
80 FEET ROAD,
Digitally signed 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA,
by VIJAYA P BENGALURU - 560 095.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF ...RESPONDENT
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. DILIP M., ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED PENALTY ORDER UNDER SECTION 271AAC(1)
DATED 21/06/2024 OF THE IT ACT, DEMAND NOTICE DATED
21/06/2024 UNDER SECTION 156 OF THE IT ACT AND THE
ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 16/01/2024 UNDER SECTION 147
R.W.S. 144 R/W 144B OF THE IT ACT PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT (PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A, B AND C).AND
ETC.,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:28950
WP No. 17393 of 2024
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV)
Petitioner has filed the present petition seeking for
issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari to set aside the
assessment order, demand notice and penalty order.
Petitioner has also sought for setting aside of the show
cause notices under Section 271-AAC(1) and 272-A(1)(d)
of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act').
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the
petitioner was unable to participate in the proceedings due
to the ill-health of petitioner's husband during the
concerned assessment year. It is further submitted that
the accounts and business was looked after by the
petitioner's husband and in light of his ill-health, petitioner
was not in a position to respond to the show cause notice.
NC: 2024:KHC:28950
3. Perusal of the assessment order at Annexure-C
would reveal that petitioner has not participated in the
proceedings. It is noticed that by virtue of
non-participation of the petitioner, assessment is
concluded on the basis of best judgment assessment. In
such proceedings, the assessing authority has observed
that in the absence of return of income as well as any
inspection / clarification of cash deposit to the extent of
Rs.1,33,97,700/- the said amount has been treated as
income chargeable to tax that has escaped assessment or
remained unexplained.
4. In light of the same, as learned counsel for
petitioner submits that if an opportunity is afforded
petitioner would explain the source of such deposit, it
would be appropriate to afford an opportunity to the
petitioner to participate in the proceedings. This would
also result in actual income that has escaped the tax to be
determined on the basis of reply to be made out by the
petitioner.
NC: 2024:KHC:28950
5. Accordingly, the Penalty order at Annexure-A,
Demand Notice at Annexure-B, Assessment order at
Annexure-C and the Demand Notice at Annexure-E are set
aside. The matter is remitted to the stage of reply to the
show cause notice. All contentions are kept open.
6. Petition is accordingly disposed off.
Sd/-
(S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV)
JUDGE
VP
