Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

The Income Tax Officer Vs Begur Sinappa Venkatesh — Income Tax | Karnataka HC (2026)

Home
Karnataka HC
2026
The Income Tax Officer Vs Begur Sinappa VenkateshThe Income Tax Officer v. Begur Sinappa Venkatesh

Disposed¶35

The Income Tax Officer v. Begur Sinappa Venkatesh

Income Tax – Writ appeal under Section 4, Karnataka High Court Act, 1961

Karnataka HC20 Jan 2026WA/568/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court Division Bench (S.G. Pandit & K.V. Aravind, JJ.) order dated 20.01.2026 in WRIT APPEAL NO.568 OF 2024 (T-IT): Revenue appeal (Income Tax Officer Ward-1 and TPS, Tumkur; National Faceless Assessment Centre) against Single Judge's order dated 16.11.2023 in W.P.No.20807/2023 quashing Section 148A(b) Income Tax Act, 1961 notice and further proceedings for want of signature by competent authority, at instance of assessee Begur Sinappa Venkatesh (Kunigal, Tumkur); appeal disposed of in same terms as same-bench judgment dated 24.09.2025 in ITA.No.261/2021 C/w. ITA.No.264/2021. Keywords: Section 148A(b) notice, competent authority signature, faceless assessment, Karnataka High Court Act Section 4, ITA 261/2021, ITA 264/2021, 24.09.2025.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed of in the same terms of the judgment dated 24.09.2025 in ITA.No.261/2021 and ITA.No.264/2021; no other or independent relief pronounced.

Why is it important?

Since the grounds raised in the appeal are answered by the judgment dated 24.09.2025 in ITA.No.261/2021 C/w. ITA.No.264/2021 of the very same bench, and counsel for the Revenue does not dispute this, the writ appeal stands disposed of in the same terms of that judgment. ¶35

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal disposed of in the same terms of the judgment dated 24.09.2025 in ITA.No.261/2021 and ITA.No.264/2021; no other or independent relief pronounced.

Issue for consideration

Whether the grounds raised in the writ appeal against the quashing of the Section 148A(b) notice (quashed solely for want of signature by the competent authority) stand answered by the same bench's judgment dated 24.09.2025 in ITA.No.261/2021 C/w. ITA.No.264/2021.

Court's answer

Since the grounds raised in the appeal are answered by the judgment dated 24.09.2025 in ITA.No.261/2021 C/w. ITA.No.264/2021 of the very same bench, and counsel for the Revenue does not dispute this, the writ appeal stands disposed of in the same terms of that judgment.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Income Tax - Writ appeal under Section 4, Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 - challenge to Single Judge's order dated 16.11.2023 in W.P.No.20807/2023 quashing notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and further proceedings, solely on the ground that the notice was not signed by the competent authority - Division Bench (S.G. Pandit and K.V. Aravind, JJ.), by judgment per S.G. Pandit, J., recorded that the grounds raised were answered by the very same bench's judgment dated 24.09.2025 in ITA.No.261/2021 C/w. ITA.No.264/2021, which counsel for the Revenue could not dispute - appeal disposed of in the same terms of that judgment.

A

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:2919-DB WA No. 568 of 2024

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

PRESENT

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

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT APPEAL NO.568 OF 2024 (T-IT)

BETWEEN:

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 AND TPS, OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX AAYAKAR BHAVAN RAMAKRISHNANAGAR KUNIGAL ROAD, RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR TUMKUR, KARNATAKA-572103.

NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ INCOME TAX OFFICER INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT MINISTRY OF FINANCE ROOM NO.401, 2^ND FLOOR, E-RAMP, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM DELHI-110003.

Digitally signed by NANJUNDACHARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

(BY SRI. SANMATHI E. I., ADV.)

AND:

…APPELLANTS

BEGUR SINAPPA VENKATESH OPP: KAMANNA TEMPLE KUNIGAL, KOTE-572130 ALSO AT BEGAUR SINAPPA VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, S/O SRI.SEENAPPA, R/AT NEAR GOVERNMENT SCHOOL, BEGUR, KASABA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DIST.-572130. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAVI SHANKAR S. V., ADV.)

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:2919-DB WA No. 568 of 2024

HC-KAR

THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO I) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16/11/2023 IN WP NO.20807/2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND II) GRANT SUCH OTHER ORDER.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

ORAL JUDGMENT

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

This appeal filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 is directed against the learned Single Judge’s order dated 16.11.2023 in W.P.No.20807/2023 whereunder the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) and further proceedings, solely on the ground that Section 148A(b) notice is not signed by the competent authority.

Heard learned counsel Sri.E.I.Sanmathi for appellants/Revenue and learned counsel Sri.Ravi

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:2919-DB WA No. 568 of 2024

HC-KAR

Shankar.S.V., for respondent. Perused the entire appeal papers.

Learned counsel for the respondent Sri.Ravi

Shankar.S.V., would submit that the grounds raised herein are answered by the very same bench in judgment dated

24.09.2025 in ITA.No.261/2021 C/w. ITA.No.264/2021.

Learned counsel for the appellants/Revenue is not in a position to dispute the same.

In the light of the above, the present appeal stands disposed of in the same terms of judgment dated 24.09.2025 in ITA.No.261/2021 and ITA.No.264/2021.

Sd/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

Sd/(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE

NC CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the grounds raised in the writ appeal against the quashing of the Section 148A(b) notice (quashed solely for want of signature by the competent authority) stand answered by the same bench's judgment dated 24.09.2025 in ITA.No.261/2021 C/w. ITA.No.264/2021.medium confidence¶26
The court held
Since the grounds raised in the appeal are answered by the judgment dated 24.09.2025 in ITA.No.261/2021 C/w. ITA.No.264/2021 of the very same bench, and counsel for the Revenue does not dispute this, the writ appeal stands disposed of in the same terms of that judgment.ratio¶35

Cases cited

Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority

AI extract

judgment dated 24.09.2025 in ITA.No.261/2021 C/w. ITA.No.264/2021Followed¶35

Statutes considered

2 provisions across 2 enactments

AI extract

Karnataka High Court Act, 19614¶26
Income Tax Act, 1961148A(b)¶26

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 16.11.2023 in W.P.No.20807/2023 of the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition and quashing the Section 148A(b) notice and further proceedings.¶26
Learned Single Judge · 16.11.2023
Prior proceeding
The learned Single Judge had allowed W.P.No.20807/2023 and quashed the Section 148A(b) notice and further proceedings solely because the notice was not signed by the competent authority.¶26
Prior proceeding
Counsel for the respondent submitted that the grounds raised in the appeal were answered by the very same bench in its judgment dated 24.09.2025 in ITA.No.261/2021 C/w. ITA.No.264/2021, which counsel for the appellants/Revenue was not in a position to dispute.¶34

Parties & counsel

AI extract

appellant
THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 AND TPS, TUMKUR¶10
Sanmathi E. I.
appellant
NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE¶11
Sanmathi E. I.
respondent
BEGUR SINAPPA VENKATESH¶16
Ravi Shankar S. V.

Coram

AI extract

S.G. PANDITauthor¶25
K. V. ARAVINDmember¶23

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Karnataka HC
Decided on: 20 Jan 2026 · January
Registered: 8 Apr 2024
Case no.: WA/568/2024
CNR: KAHC010214362024
Topic: Income Tax
Bench: S.g.pandit K. V. Aravind
Disposal: DISPOSED
Case type: Writ Appeal

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from S.g.pandit K. V. Aravind

Dr. Shuhabuddin Vs the State of Karnataka
19 Jan 2026
Sri. Lingaraju Vs Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.
19 Jan 2026
Dr. Deepika G Vs Employees State Insurance Corporation
19 Jan 2026
The Additional Commissioner of Central Tax Vs M/S Apkon Ventures Pvt. Ltd.
20 Jan 2026
The Legal Manager Vs Vaishali Hiren Parmar
20 Jan 2026
M/S. the Karnataka Chemists and Druggists Association (R) Vs the Income Tax Officer
20 Jan 2026

Cite this judgement

The Income Tax Officer v. Begur Sinappa Venkatesh, WA/568/2024 (KA), decided on 20 January 2026.

The High Court of Karnataka publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Cases cited1

judgment dated 24.09.2025 in ITA.No.261/2021 C/w. ITA.No.264/2021Followed¶35

Open Authorities

Statutes2

Karnataka High Court Act, 19614
Income Tax Act, 1961148A(b)

View all statutes

Procedural history3

Order dated 16.11.2023 in W.P.No.20807/2023 of the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition and quashing the Section 148A(b) notice and further proceedings.Learned Single Judge · 16.11.2023
The learned Single Judge had allowed W.P.No.20807/2023 and quashed the Section 148A(b) notice and further proceedings solely because the notice was not signed by the competent authority.
Counsel for the respondent submitted that the grounds raised in the appeal were answered by the very same bench in its judgment dated 24.09.2025 in ITA.No.261/2021 C/w. ITA.No.264/2021, which counsel for the appellants/Revenue was not in a position to dispute.

View full history

Bench / Coram

S.G. PANDIT and K. V. ARAVIND

Parties & counsel