Ramakrishnaiah Manjunath Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14540 WP No. 9151 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 9151 OF 2025 (T-IT)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

RAMAKRISHNAIAH MANJUNATH SON OF RAMAKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT 69, GARUDAKCHARPALYA, WHITEFIELD ROAD, MAHADEVAPURA POST, BANGALORE - 560 048

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. T. SURYANARAYANA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT.TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by KORLAHALLI BHARATHIDEVIKRISHNACHARYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶14

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATIONS) BMTC,BUILDING, 6^TH BLOCK, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 095.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI.M DILIP, ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14540 WP No. 9151 of 2025

¶19

19.03.2024 BEARING NO. ITBA/AST/S/147/2023-24/1063018032(1) (ANNEXURE H) PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17 AND ETC.,

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

¶24

" (a) Quashing the order dated 19.03.2024 bearing No. ITBA/AST/S/147/2023-24/1063018032(1) (Annexure H) passed by the 1st Respondent under Section 147 of the Act for the assessment year 2016-17;

¶25

(b) Quashing the demand notice dated 19.03.2024 bearing No. ITBA/AST/S/156/2023-24/1063018181(1) issued by the 1st Respondent (Annexure J) to the Petition under Section 156 of the Act for the assessment year 2016-17; and

¶26

(c) Quashing of the order dated 26.09.2024 bearing No. ITBA/PNL/F/271(1)(b)/2024-25/1069226264(1) passed by the 1st Respondent (Annexure L-1) under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for the assessment year 2016-17;

¶27

(d) Quashing of the demand notice dated 26.09.2024 bearing No. ITBA/PNL/S/156/2024-25/1069225467(1) issued by the 1st Respondent (Annexure L-2) under Section 156 of the Act for the assessment year 2016-17;

¶28

(e) Quashing of the order dated 26.09.2024 bearing No. ITBA/PNL/F/271(1)(c)/2024-25/1069226256(1) passed by the 1st Respondent (Annexure M-1) under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment year 2016-17;

¶29

(f) Quashing of the demand notice dated 26.09.2024 bearing No. ITBA/PNL/S/156/2024-25/1069225464(1) issued by the 1st Respondent (Annexure M-2) under Section 156 of the Act for the assessment year 2016-17;

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14540 WP No. 9151 of 2025

¶31

(g) Quashing of the order dated 28.03.2023 bearing No. ITBA/AST/F/148A/2022-23/1051515214(1) passed by the 1st Respondent (Annexure E) under Section 148A(d) of the Act for the assessment year 2016-17;

¶32

(h) Quashing of notice dated 28.03.2023 bearing No. ITBA/AST/SL 148_1/2022-23/1051515963(1) issued by the 1st Respondent (Annexure F) under Section 148 of the Act for the assessment year 2016-17;

¶33

(i) pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interests of justice and equity."

¶34

2. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and

¶35

learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶36

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that though several contentions have been urged by both sides in respect of their respective claims, however, it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner did not submit any reply to the notice dated 14.03.2023 vide Annexure-D issued by the respondents under Section 148A (b) of Income-tax Act, 1961, as a result of which, the respondent No.1 has proceeded to pass the impugned orders at Annexures-E' and F', both dated 28.03.2023 under Section 148A(d) of the Income-tax Act, followed by consequent notices, orders etc., all of which are assailed in the present petition.

¶37

4 -

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:14540 WP No. 9151 of 2025

¶39

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being an individual and not conversant, as such, the notices sent through E-mail were not responded by him and if an opportunity is provided, the petitioner will file a reply and contest the proceedings in accordance with law.

¶40

A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that it is an undisputed fact that petitioner has not submitted reply / response along with documents to Section 148A(b) notice. Under these circumstances, in view of the specific assertion on the part of the petitioner that his inability and omission to submit a reply along with documents to Section 148A(b) notice was due to bona fide reasons and unavoidable circumstances, and as sufficient cause is shown by the petitioner, I deem it just and appropriate to grant one more opportunity to the petitioner to submit reply along with documents, by setting aside the impugned orders at Annexures-E' and F', both dated 28.03.2023, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income-tax Act, and subsequent notice / orders, etc., and remitting the matter back to respondent No.1 for reconsideration afresh from the stage of submitting of reply by the petitioner to Section 148A(b) notice and to proceed further in accordance with law.

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14540 WP No. 9151 of 2025

¶42

In the result, pass the following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

(i) The Petition is hereby allowed .

¶45

(ii) Impugned notices/orders at Annexures-E and F, dated 28.03.2023, Annexures-H and J dated 19.03.2024, Annexures-L-1, L-2, M-1 and M-2, dated 26.09.2024, are hereby set aside.

¶46

(iii) Matter is remitted back to respondent No.1 for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law from the stage

¶47

of submitting of reply to the Show Cause Notice under Section 148A(b) of the IT Act at Annexure-F dated 28.03.2023.

¶48

(iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit additional pleadings, documents, etc., to the respondent, who shall consider the same and proceed further in accordance with law.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶51

BK : List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28

Ramakrishnaiah Manjunath v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramakrishnaiah Manjunath v. Deputy 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Matada Channabasaiah Siddabasaiah Vs the Income Tax Officer

M/S Forest Contractor Vs Union of India

Assessing Officer Vs Estate of the Deceased Bachappa

Mr.R. Ashok Kumar Vs the Assistant Commissioner of

M/S. Gemini Technical Advisors Pvt. Ltd, Vs the Union of India

Ms.S. Mohammedi Aliya Taj Vs the Dental Council of India