The Income Tax Officer Vs Smt. Praveena Kumari — Income Tax | Karnataka HC (2026)

The Income Tax Officer Vs Smt. Praveena Kumari — Income Tax | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 granting less than seven days for compliance is unsustainable, i.e., whether the minimum seven-day period is mandatory or only directory (the substantial question of law in the appeal, stated to be identical to that in W.A.No.1141/2026).

Court's answer

Since the issue and substantial question of law raised in this appeal stand considered in W.A.No.1141/2026 (disposed of on 17.04.2026) and the present appeal involves identical facts and circumstances, the appeal is dismissed in terms of the order dated 17.04.2026 in W.A.No.1141/2026; pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Income-tax - Notice under Section 148A(b) - less than seven days given to respond - WA No.1351 of 2026 (T-IT), High Court of Karnataka (Division Bench: S.G. Pandit and K. Manmadha Rao JJ.; oral judgment per S.G. Pandit J.), decided 04.06.2026: Appeal by the Income Tax Officer Ward-2(2)(5), Bangalore, the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Karnataka and Goa, and the Assessment Unit NFAC against the learned Single Judge's order dated 08.09.2025 in WP No.9680 of 2024 (T-IT) - On joint submission of counsel, and finding the facts and the substantial question of law identical to those in W.A.No.1141/2026 (disposed 17.04.2026) - which had recorded, following W.A No.612 of 2025 (Income Tax Officer and ors. v. Venkatala Iyyappa Rajanna, disposed 05.08.2025), that a notice under Section 148A(b) allowing less than seven days for compliance is unsustainable and that consequential orders and notices (order under Section 148A(d), notice under Section 148, assessment under Section 147 read with Section 144, penalty notices under Sections 271AAC(1) and 272A(1)(d)) fall with it - the Division Bench dismissed the present appeal in terms of the order dated 17.04.2026 in W.A.No.1141/2026; pending interlocutory applications disposed.

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:26322-DB WA No. 1351 of 2026

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

AND

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

WRIT APPEAL NO.1351 OF 2026 (T-IT)

BETWEEN:

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(2)(5), BANGALORE BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD 6^TH BLOCK, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE KORAMANGALA BENGALURU- 560 095.

Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KARNATAKA AND GOA BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD 6^TH BLOCK, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE KORAMANGALA BENGALURU- 560 095.

ASSESSMENT UNIT NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ROOM NO.401, 2^ND FLOOR, E-RAMP, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, DELHI - 110 003.

…APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. THIRUMALESH M.,ADVOCATE)

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:26322-DB WA No. 1351 of 2026

HC-KAR

AND:

SMT. PRAVEENA KUMARI W/O LATE SHRI PRAVEEN KUMAR AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS NO.3 AND 4, 2^ND FLOOR, 29^TH CROSS, KILLARI ROAD, BANGALORE-560 053.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.S.V.RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 08.09.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No.9680 OF 2024 (T-IT) AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER AS THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT, UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

Heard learned counsel Sri.Thirumalesh M appearing

for the appellants and learned counsel Sri.S V Ravishankar

appearing for the respondent.

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:26322-DB WA No. 1351 of 2026

HC-KAR

Both learned counsel appearing for the parties

would submit that the issue and substantial question of law raised in the above appeal are considered in W.A.No.1141/2026 disposed of on 17.04.2026 and

relevant paragraph Nos.3, 4 and 7 reads as follows:

"3. The brief facts are that the appellant had issued a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"). The said notice was challenged in the writ petition on the ground that the minimum period of seven days was not granted and, therefore, the same was unsustainable in law. The learned Single Judge, following the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A No.612 of 2025 in the case of Income Tax Officer and ors. v. Venkatala Iyyappa Rajanna, set aside the notice issued under Section 148A(b), the order passed under Section 148A(d), the notice issued under Section 148, the assessment made under Section 147 read with Section 144, and also the penalty notices issued under Sections 271AAC(1) and 272A(1)(d) of the Act.

Smt. Niyathi, learned counsel appearing for Sri M. Thirumalesh, learned standing counsel for the appellantRevenue, submits that where the time limit provided for compliance with the notice is less than seven days, and the same being extendable, the grant of a minimum period of seven days is not mandatory. It is contended that the notice has been set aside as though the grant of a period of less than seven days would affect the jurisdiction to issue notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act. It is further submitted that Section 148A provides for extension of time up to thirty days and, therefore, the minimum period of seven days is not mandatory but only directory.

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:26322-DB WA No. 1351 of 2026

HC-KAR

The identical issue came up for consideration before this Court in W.A No.612 of 2025 in the case of Venkatala Iyyappa Rajanna (supra), disposed of on 05.08.2025, wherein it was held that a notice under Section 148A(b) would be unsustainable if the period provided for compliance is less than seven days. The learned Single Judge, following the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, has set aside the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act. Once the notice is set aside, all consequential orders and notices would also become unsustainable".

The present appeal also involves identical facts and circumstances. In terms of the order dated 17.04.2026 in W.A.No.1141/2026, the present appeal also stands dismissed .

Pending Interlocutory Application/s, if any, stands disposed of.

SD/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

SD/(DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE

GSR

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12