Padmavathi Krishna, Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1)(1)

PADMAVATHI KRISHNA, WIFE OF SRI MUNIVENKATAPPA KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, NO. 263, 15^TH MAIN, 6^TH CROSS, RMV EXTENSION, SADASHIVANAGAR, BENGALURU 560080.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N

¶13

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

(BY SRI. SHREEHARI.,ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(1)(1), BENGALURU, BMTC BUILDING, 80FT ROAD, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU 560095.

¶17

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARNATAKA AND GOA,

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:29723 WP No. 17311 of 2026

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THE SPECIFIED AUTHORITY UNDER SECTION 151 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU 560001.

¶22

NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE (NFAC), A CENTRE DESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 144B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ROOM NO. 401, 2^ND FLOOR, E-RAMP, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, DELHI 110 003 REP. BY PR. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (NEAC).

¶23

ASSESSMENT UNIT A UNIT CREATED UNDER SECTION 144B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ROOM NO. 401, 2^ND FLOOR, E-RAMP, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, DELHI 110 003 REP. BY PR. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (NEAC).

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI.M. DILIP., ADVOCATE A/W

¶26

SRI. VINAYAK G PANDIT., ADVOCATES)

¶27

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A. ISSUE

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:29723 WP No. 17311 of 2026

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER SUITABLE WRIT FOR QUASHING OF THE DIGITALLY SIGNED AND ELECTRONICALLY COMMUNICATED NOTICE U/S 148A(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DATED 16/03/2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 WHICH BEARS THE DIN ITBA/AST/F/148A(SCN)/2021-VIZ., 22/1040888421(1) AND ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE B; B. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER SULTABLE WRIT FOR QUASHING OF THE DIGITALLY SIGNED AND ELECTRONICALLY COMMUNICATED ORDER U/S 148A(D) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DATED 30/03/2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 WHICH BEARS THE DIN VIZ., ITBA/AST/F/148A/202122/1042035743(1) AND ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE C; C. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER SUITABLE WRIT FOR QUASHING OF THE DIGITALLY SIGNED AND ELECTRONICALLY COMMUNICATED NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 DATED 30/03/2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 WHICH BEARS THE DIN VIZ., ITBA/AST/S/148-1/202122/1042130200(1) AND ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE D AND ETC.

¶32

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:29723 WP No. 17311 of 2026

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

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

¶35

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶36

ORAL ORDER

¶37

The petitioner has called in question the Show Cause Notice dated 16.03.2022 [ Annexure-B ] under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short, ‘ the Act’ ], the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act dated 30.03.2022 [ Annexure-C ], the Notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2022 [ Annexure-D ], the Reassessment Order dated 20.02.2023 [ Annexure-L1 ], the Computation and the Demand Notices dated 20.02.2023 [ Annexure L2 and L3 ] also the Penalty Orders. These impugned Orders/Notices relate to the assessment year 201516. The petitioner has availed appellate remedy with the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals], but the appeal is rejected by the order dated 21.10.2024 [ Annexure-Q ].

¶38

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:29723 WP No. 17311 of 2026

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

Sri Shrihari K., the learned counsel for the

¶41

petitioner, submits that this Court must interfere with the impugned notices and the orders in the light of the following circumstances.

¶42

[a] The Notices, including the Notice under Section 148 A (b) of the Act are addressed to the E-mail of the petitioner's husband who

¶43

is over 75 years old, and therefore, the petitioner could not have accessed the notices to ensure a response.

¶44

[b] The Assessing Officer has also alluded to

¶45

the notices being addressed to the petitioner’s husband in the Assessment Order while referring to the statement recorded by the concerned Tax Officer.

¶46

[c] The proceedings relate to the assessment year 2015-16, and the alleged income that

¶47

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:29723 WP No. 17311 of 2026

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

has escaped tax is Rs.21,59,930/- [as

¶50

short-term capital gain].

¶51

[d] In terms of Section 149 (1)(b)(iii) of the Act the assessment proceedings, even if it could be, had to be completed within three years from 31.03.2019 because the amount which

¶52

is alleged to have escaped assessment is lower than Rs.50/- lakhs.

¶53

The question whether this Court must interfere with the impugned Notices, the Assessment Order as also the Order-in-Appeal and the Computation and Demand for tax, Penalty and Interest is considered in the light of these assertions upon hearing Sri M. Dilip and Sri Vinayaka S. Pandit, the learned Standing Counsels who accept notice for the respondents. The learned Standing Counsels submit that this Court may consider that the petitioner has not responded either to the Show Cause Notice under 148A(b) or the Notice under 148

¶54

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:29723 WP No. 17311 of 2026

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

of the Act and the computation of income that has escaped tax results from the reassessment proceedings, and therefore, the petitioner cannot call in question the reassessment proceedings. They also point out that in the appeal the petitioner could not persuade the appellate authority to accept the cause shown.

¶57

This Court must observe that the

¶58

petitioner, as a homemaker, depended upon her husband who was aged 72 years and that the Notices were addressed to his email-ID are not in dispute. This offers a cause that must be considered in the light of the fact that the petitioner’s grievance with the proceedings is based on an assertion that undermines a jurisdictional fact. It cannot be gainsaid that as of the relevant date, Section 149 (1) stipulated that no Notice under Section 148 of the Act could be issued if three years had lapsed unless the circumstances as contemplated under Section

¶59

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:29723 WP No. 17311 of 2026

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

149 (1)(b) are satisfied. The Section 149(1)(b)(iii) of

¶62

the Act [ as relevant to the subject Assessment Year ] categorically stipulates that if three years have lapsed and the income chargeable to tax, if represented in an asset or expenditure or entries in the books of account, would be a cause for reassessment if such income was likely to be Rs.50,00,000/- and more.

¶63

As such, it is trite that if the Assessing

¶64

Officer could not have opined that at the time of issuance of Show Cause Notice under Section 148A(b) or Notice even under Section 148 of the Act the amount that has escaped assessment is likely to be more than Rs.50,00,000/-, notices could not be issued if three years had lapsed for the relevant assessment year. In the present case, the outcome is that the income that has escaped assessment as capital gain is only Rs.21,59,930/-, and much below

¶65

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:29723 WP No. 17311 of 2026

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

the threshold¹ . Therefore, this Court must answer the questions framed in favour of the petitioner and allow the petition notwithstanding the dismissal of the appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] in the appeal under Section 250 of the Act. Hence, the following:

¶68

ORDER

¶69

The petition is allowed quashing the

¶70

Show Cause Notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act dated 16.03.2022 [ Annexure-B ], the Order under 148A(d) dated 30.03.2022 [ Annexure-C ], the Notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2022 [ Annexure-D ], the Reassessment Order dated 20.02.2023 [ Annexure-L1 ] and all other consequential computations and

¶71