Anunahally Nanjachari Swamy Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

ANUNAHALLY NANJACHARI SWAMY, S/O SRI. NANJACHARI, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, NO. 231, CHAMANAHALLI, BANNUR HOBALI, T. NARASIPURA TALUK – 571 101. PAN: AINPS5348E

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. ANNAMALAI S., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CENTRAL CIRCLE MYSORE, REAC, MYSORE, MYSURU, KARNATAKA – 570 008 …RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. SUSHAL TIWARI, ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148A(b) OF THE ACT DTD 11.08.2023 BEARING DIN AND LETTER NO.ITBA/AST/F/17/2023-24/1055081346(1) ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2019-20 HEREIN MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A1 AND ETC.,

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:42966 WP No. 831 of 2024

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:-

¶24

“i) Issue a writ of Certiorari or direction in the nature of a writ of certiorari quashing the notice issued under section 148A(b) of the Act dated 11/08/2023 bearing DIN & Letter No. ITBA/AST/F/17/202324/1055081346(1) issued by the Respondent for the assessment year 2019-20 herein marked as Annexure - A1.

¶25

ii) Issue a writ of Certiorari or direction in the nature of a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 26/09/2023 passed under section 148A(d) of the Act bearing DIN & Letter No. ITBA/AST/F/17/2023-24/1056546646(1) issued by the Respondent for the assessment year 2019-20 herein marked as Annexure - A2.

¶26

iii) Issue a writ of Certiorari or direction in the nature of a writ of certiorari quashing the notice dated 26/09/2023 issued under section 148 of the Act bearing DIN No. ITBA/AST/F/17/2023-24/1056557194(1) issued by the Respondent for the assessment year 2019-20 herein marked as Annexure - A3.

¶27

iv) And pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:42966 WP No. 831 of 2024

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶32

counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶33

In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the memorandum of petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the order of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ramachandra Reddy Ravi Kumar Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax - W.P.No.17352/2022 and connected matters - dated 28.08.2025 , in order to contend that the present petition deserves to be allowed and disposed of in terms of the said order.

¶34

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶35

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner the present petition is directly and squarely covered by the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ramachandra Reddy Ravi Kumar Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax - W.P.No.17352/2022 and connected matters - dated 28.08.2025, the operative portion of which reads as under:

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:42966 WP No. 831 of 2024

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

"13. I, therefore, pass the following:

¶40

O R D E R

¶41

(i) The impugned show cause notices issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer outside the scope of Section 151-A of the Act stand obliterated. All further proceedings initiated thereto, challenged in these cases would stand quashed.

¶42

(ii) Liberty is reserved to the respondents - revenue to revive all these petitions in the event the Apex Court would hold in favour of the Revenue in the pending before it.

¶43

(iii) With the aforesaid liberty and to the aforesaid extent, the petitions are allowed.

¶44

(iv) Contentions of both the parties except the one noted hereinabove, shall remain open to be considered in the event revival of these petitions would become necessary."

¶45

The aforesaid order is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case and consequently, the present petition also deserves to be disposed of in terms of the judgment of co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Ramachandra Reddy's case

¶46

supra .

¶47

In the result, I pass the following:

¶48

5 -

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:42966 WP No. 831 of 2024

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

ORDER

¶52

(i) The petition is allowed and disposed of in terms of the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ramachandra Reddy Ravi Kumar Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax - W.P.No.17352/2022 and connected matters - dated 28.08.2025.

¶53

(ii) The impugned show cause notices and consequential orders, notices etc., at AnnexuresA1, A2 and A3 dated 11.08.2023, 26.09.2023 and 26.09.2023 respectively are hereby quashed.

¶54

(iii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the respondents - Revenue to seek revival of this petition, subsequent to disposal of the matters pending before the Apex Court and all rival contentions between the parties in this regard are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.

¶55

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶56

MDS

¶57

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 43

Anunahally Nanjachari Swamy v. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anunahally Nanjachari Swamy v. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rasha Kabeer Vs the State of Karnataka

Lenovo Global Technology (India) Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Sri Agastegowda Deepak Thirumakudalu Vs the Addl/Joint/Deputy Asst Commissioner of Income Tax

Smt P Anuradha Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.Anil Kumar M P Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Sri Om Traders Vs Union of India