The Karnataka High Court set aside a penalty notice and order under Section 271DA for violating Section 269ST, holding the proceedings were time-barred. Following the K. Umesh Shetty precedent, the Court ruled that the delay between the AO’s reference and the penalty notice constituted unreasonable laches, vitiating the entire action.
Upholding the sanctity of concluded proceedings, the Court rejected the Revenue’s challenge, holding that the Checkmate Services judgment on PF/ESI contributions cannot retroactively invalidate a prior ITAT order. The key takeaway is that the ITAT’s power under Section 254(2) is limited, and a later change in law is not a ground to disturb a settled matter.
The Karnataka High Court dismissed the Revenue’s petition, affirming that the ITAT correctly refused to rectify its concluded order using the later Supreme Court ruling in Checkmate Services. The ruling emphasizes that Section 254(2) is only for mistakes apparent from the record, and a subsequent change in law cannot reopen a finalized judicial adjudication.
The Court held that the entire series of reassessment actions, including the final assessment and penalty notices, were bad in law because the initiating notices were issued by the wrong authority, violating Section 151A. This quashing emphasizes the mandatory nature of the faceless assessment protocol, unless the Supreme Court later validates the department’s action.
Judicial precedent from Karnataka HC confirms that Assessing Officer must provide not less than seven days to an assessee to respond to a show-cause notice under Section 148A(b). Failure to comply renders the notice and all subsequent reassessment steps, including the order and penalty notice, invalid.
The Karnataka High Court set aside the PCIT’s rejection of a condonation delay application for late online Form 68 filing. The court adopted a justice-oriented view, directing a fresh, liberal reconsideration, as the taxpayer’s manual compliance was timely and the error was bona fide.
Karnataka High Court quashes all reassessment notices and orders issued under the faceless scheme for being outside the permissible scope of Section 151A of the Income Tax Act. This ruling voids notices due to a lack of statutory jurisdiction, though the Revenue is allowed to seek a revival if the Supreme Court later rules in its favor.
The Karnataka High Court allowed the petition, declaring the reassessment order and all related penalty notices for AY 2016-17 invalid because the initial proceedings were initiated without proper jurisdictional approval under Section 151A. The judgment underscores the critical nature of procedural integrity in faceless assessments, reserving the right for the department to reinstate the case based on a future Supreme Court ruling.
Karnataka High Court quashed reassessment notices and orders for AY 2019-20, ruling they were issued without proper jurisdiction and violated the framework of Section 151A. This decision voids the proceedings due to a jurisdictional defect, granting the Revenue liberty to revive the case only after the Supreme Court’s final decision.
Karnataka High Court set aside reassessment proceedings for AY 2020-21, ruling the jurisdictional Assessing Officer acted beyond the scope of Section 151A (Faceless Assessment). The decision reinforces that reassessment notices must strictly follow the procedural mandate of the faceless regime, though the Revenue retains the liberty to revive the case if the Supreme Court validates the procedure.
