Varaha Builders Vs ITO (Karnataka High Court)
Karnataka High Court remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer since non-response to notice issued under section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act by the petitioner was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause.
Facts- The present petition is preferred by the petitioner mainly requesting quashing of the notice issued under section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act. Notably, petitioner has not responded to the notice so issued and contested that notices so issued was not received by the petitioner. Thus, the inability and omission on the part of the petitioner to submit reply/response along with documents to the Section 148A(b) notices was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause and as such, if one more opportunity is provided to the petitioner to do so by setting aside the impugned orders and notices, the petitioner would do so and the respondents may be directed to proceed further in accordance with law.
Conclusion- Held that it is an undisputed fact that petitioner has not submitted reply/response along with documents to Section 148A(b) notices. Under these circumstances, in view of the specific assertion on the part of the petitioner that its inability and omission to submit a reply along with documents to Section 148A(b) notices was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause and if one more opportunity is granted, the petitioner would submit reply along with documents, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order at Annexure – A2 dated 21.03.2023 passed under Section 148A(d) of the IT Act and subsequent notice/orders, etc., and remit the matter back to respondent No.1 for reconsideration afresh from the stage of submitting of reply by the petitioner to Section 148A(b) notices and to proceed further in accordance with law.
