Harsha N. Billangad v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Circle-5(1), Bangalore
[Citation -2020-LL-0914-49]

Citation 2020-LL-0914-49
Appellant Name Harsha N. Billangad
Respondent Name The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Circle-5(1), Bangalore
Court HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 14/09/2020
Assessment Year 2008-09
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags substantial question of law • return of income • revised return • notice issued
Bot Summary: The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court vide order dated 22.07.2013 on the following substantial question of law: Whether the Tribunal or the authorities below was justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee for deduction under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 from the facts and circumstances of the case 2. 3 Whether the order passed by the Assessing Officer without issuing proper notice under Section 143(2) of the Act on the original return filed by the assessee is non est in the eye of law 3. The assessee had filed the return of income under Section 139(4) of the Act on 18.03.2009 declaring a total income of Rs.46,58,720/-. Thereafter, the assessee filed the revised return under Section 139(5) of the Act on 23.11.2009. It is the case of the assessee that considering the revised return of the assessee, notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 26.08.2010 and therefore, the notice issued under Section 143(2) of the Act is non est in the eye of law. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submitted that the issue with regard to validity of the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act requires factual adjudication. Even otherwise, the aforesaid question has been raised by the assessee for the first time in this appeal.


1 IN HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 PRESENT HON BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND HON BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.406 OF 2012 BETWEEN: DR. HARSHA N. BILLANGADY #95, 3RD MAIN DOLLARS LAYOUT 4TH PHASE, J.P. NAGAR BANGALORE-560078. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. A. SHANKAR, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. M. LAVA, ADV.,) AND: DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1), 6TH FLOOR UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE MISSION ROAD, BANGALORE-560027. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.) --- THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 20.07.2012 PASSED IN ITA NO.1298/BANG/2011, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, PRAYING THAT THIS HON BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO: (I) FORMULATE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW STATED THEREIN. 2 (I) ALLOW APPEAL AND SET ASIDE FINDINGS TO EXTENT AGAINST APPELLANT IN ORDER PASSED BY TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.1298/BANG/2011 DATED 20-07-2012. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act for short) has been preferred by assessee. subject matter of appeal pertains to Assessment year 2008-09. appeal was admitted by bench of this Court vide order dated 22.07.2013 on following substantial question of law: (i) Whether Tribunal or authorities below was justified in rejecting claim of assessee for deduction under Section 54F of Income Tax Act, 1961 from facts and circumstances of case? 2. After hearing learned counsel for parties, this court passed following additional substantial question of law. 3 (i) Whether order passed by Assessing Officer without issuing proper notice under Section 143(2) of Act on original return filed by assessee is non est in eye of law? 3. We have heard learned counsel for parties. assessee had filed return of income under Section 139(4) of Act on 18.03.2009 declaring total income of Rs.46,58,720/-. Thereafter, assessee filed revised return under Section 139(5) of Act on 23.11.2009. It is case of assessee that considering revised return of assessee, notice under Section 143(2) of Act was issued on 26.08.2010 and therefore, notice issued under Section 143(2) of Act is non est in eye of law. Learned counsel for parties jointly submitted that issue with regard to validity of notice under Section 143(2) of Act requires factual adjudication. Even otherwise, aforesaid question has been raised by assessee for first time in this appeal. 4 Therefore, in facts and circumstances of case, we deem it appropriate to quash order dated 20.07.2012 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and remit matter to Tribunal for decision afresh in accordance with law. All contentions available to both parties are kept open. In result, appeal is disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE ss Harsha N. Billangad v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Circle-5(1), Bangalore
Report Error