BADRUNNISA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP/22591/2026HC KarnatakaKAHC01050044202628 July 2026Author: B M SHYAM PRASAD8 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the petition, quashing the impugned order under Section 148A(d) dated 11.03.2023 (Annexure-C) and all subsequent proceedings. The Court reasoned that there was no dispute that the notices were addressed to an email not provided by the petitioner and that while earlier notices were returned with an endorsement of 'no such address', the petitioner was served with a Penalty Order at the same address. These circumstances, coupled with the petitioner's age, persuaded the Court to grant another opportunity. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a response to the notices dated 09.02.2023/21.02.2023 with the first respondent without further notice by 25.09.2026. The principle established is that procedural fairness and proper service are essential for valid reassessment and penalty proceedings, and where these are demonstrably lacking, and the assessee's inability to participate is bona fide, a further opportunity should be granted.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Badrunnisa, a 72-year-old non-filer, is challenging notices and orders related to reassessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2016-17. She claims to have purchased an immovable property on 10.08.2015 for Rs. 62,00,000/- by pledging her personal jewelry. The petitioner asserts she was not served with any notices or orders except a Penalty Order dated 16.08.2024. She further states that her Chartered Accountant, who handled her tax matters, had passed away due to COVID-19. The petitioner contends that notices under Section 148A(b) were sent to an incorrect email address (ARFOZ-SAL@hotmail.com) instead of her provided email (irfanpasha8@gmail.com). Although notices were purportedly sent to her address and returned with an endorsement of 'no such address', she received the Penalty Order at the same address.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notices issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent order under Section 148A(d) of the Act, along with the notice under Section 148 of the Act for Assessment Year 2016-17, are liable to be quashed due to non-service and incorrect communication details. 2. Whether the reassessment order under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act, and the penalty orders under Sections 271F, 271(1)(b), and 271(1)(c) of the Act for Assessment Year 2016-17, are liable to be quashed on grounds of procedural irregularities and lack of proper opportunity to the assessee. Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argues that she was not properly served with notices and orders, with notices being sent to an incorrect email address and returned from her physical address with an endorsement of 'no such address'. She highlights the discrepancy of receiving a penalty order at the same address where earlier notices were returned. Given her age and the demise of her Chartered Accountant, she claims a bona fide inability to participate in the proceedings and seeks an opportunity to present her case. The petitioner relies on the circumstances to demonstrate her inability to participate. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment records that the learned standing counsel for the respondents accepted notice and was heard for interference in light of the circumstances presented by the petitioner. No specific arguments or reliance on authorities by the revenue are recorded.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148A(b),Section 148A(d),Section 148,Section 147,Section 144,Section 271F,Section 271(1)(b),Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 22591 OF 2026 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

BADRUNNISA W/O LATE ANWAR PASHA AGE ABOUT 72 YEARS NO 24 5TH A CROSS RMV 2ND STAGE BHOOPASANDRA BENGALURU 560094.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASANNA B.M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. LIKITH PATEL M K., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD NO 6(3)(1) BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD NEAR GAMES VILLAGE KORAMANGALA BENGALURU 560095.

2.

NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT DELHI II FLOOR E RAMP

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM DELHI 110003. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.M. DILIP., ADVOCATE A/W SRI. VINAYAKA S PANDIT., ADVOCATE)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIAPRAYING TO I. QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED NOTICE ISSUED UNDER CLAUSE (B) OF SECTION 148A OF THE ACT, BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 09.02.2023 IN DIN AND NOTICE NO. ITBA/AST/F/148A(SCN) 2022- 23/1049573355 (1) ANNEXURE A AS WELL AS THE IMPUGNED NOTICE ISSUED UNDER CLAUSE (B) OF SECTION 148A OF THE ACT, BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 21.02.2023 NO. ITBA/AST/F/148A(SCN) 2022-23/1049948979 ANNEXURE B AS WELL AS THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED UNDER CLAUSE (D) OF SECTION 148A OF THE ACT DATED 11.03.2023, PASSED BY 1ST RESPONDENT ITBA/AST/F/148A/2022-23/ 1050647353 ANNEXURE CAS WELL AS NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT DT- 18.03.2023 IN DIN AND NO. ITBA/AST/S/148-1/2022- 23/1050939503(1) ANNEXURE D ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016 17; AND, II. QUASH AND SET ASIDE IMPUGNED ORDER

PASSED UNDER SECTION 147 R.W.S 144 OF THE ACT PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 12.02.2024 IN DIN AND ORDER NO- ITBA/AST/S/147/2023- 24/1060825808(1)ANNEXURE-F AS WELL AS IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 271F OF THE ACT, DT- 13.08.2024 IN DIN AND ORDER NO- ITBA/PNL/F/271F/2024-25/1067595139(1)ANNEXURE - G PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AS WELL AS THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT, DT- 13.08.2024 IN DIN AND ORDER NO- ITBA/PNL/F/271(1)(B)/2024-25/ 1067705721 ANNEXURE - H PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AS SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, DT- 16.08.2024 IN DIN ORDER ITBA/PNL/F/271(1)(C)/2024- 25/1067691396 (1) ANNEXURE-J PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17 AND; III. DIRECTING RESPONDENTS BY THEMSELVES, THEIR SUBORDINATE, SERVANTS AND AGENTS TO WITHDRAW AND CANCEL IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 147 R.W.S 144 OF THE ACT PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED ORDER ITBA/AST/S/147/2023-24/1060825808(1) ANNEXURE-F AS WELL AS THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 271F OF THE ACT, DT- 13.08.2024 IN DIN AND ORDER NO- ITBA/PNL/F/271F/2024-25/1067595139(1) ANNEXURE G PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AS

SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT, DT- 13.08.2024 IN DIN ORDER ITBA/PNL/F/271(1)(B)/2024- 25/1067705721 (1) ANNEXURE - H PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AS WELL AS THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, DT- ORDER ITBA/PNL/F/271(1)(C)/2024-25/1067691396 ANNEXURE -J PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17 AND; IV. PROHIBITING AND RESTRAINING THE RESPONDENTS BY THEMSELVES, THEIR SUBORDINATE SERVANTS AGENTS FROM TAKING ANY ACTION FURTHERANCE OR CONSEQUENT TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 147 R.W.S 144 OF THE ACT PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED ORDER ITBA/AST/S/147/2023-24/1060825808(1) ANNEXURE-F AS WELL AS THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 271F OF THE ACT, DT- 13.08.2024 IN DIN AND ORDER NO-ITBA/PNL/F/271F/2024-25/1067595139(1) ANNEXURE G PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AS SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT, DT- 13.08.2024 IN DIN ORDER ITBA/PNL/F/271(1)(B)/2024- 25/1067705721 (1) ANNEXURE - H PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AS WELL AS THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, DT-

ORDER ITBA/PNL/F/271(1)(C)/2024-25/1067691396 ANNEXURE - J PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17.

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

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

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is aggrieved by the Notices dated 09.02.2023 and 21.02.2023 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short, ‘the IT Act’] and the subsequent Order dated 21.02.2023 under Section 148A(d) of the IT Act as also the conclusion of the proceedings resulting in Penalty Order dated 16.08.2024 under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

2.

Sri. Prasanna B.M., the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits [i] that the petitioner, who is aged 72 years and who is a non-filer of ITR, has bona fide purchased an immobile property on 10.08.2015 for a sum of Rs.62,00,000/- pledging her personal jewelry; [ii] that

the petitioner is not served with any notice or the orders except the Penalty Order dated 16.08.2024; [iii] that the petitioner thereafter had to contact her Chartered Accountant only to be informed that he had succumbed to COVID-19 and [iv] that thereafter despite all constraints she has invoked this Court's jurisdiction in the present petition.

3.

On the petitioner's non-participation in the reassessment proceedings, Sri. Prasanna B.M submits that the Assessment Order records that the Notices were addressed to ARFOZ-SAL@hotmail.com despite recording that petitioner has furnished her email as irfanpasha8@gmail.com and that this could be seen from the order under Section 148A(d) of the IT Act dated 11.03.2023. The learned counsel also submits that Assessment Order records that the notices have been issued to the petitioner's address and returned with the endorsement that “no such address” but the petitioner has been served with a Penalty Order dated 16.08.2024 at the same address.

4.

Sri. Prasanna B.M., relying upon these circumstances, submits that the petitioner is bona fide in stating that she could not participate in the proceedings and therefore she must have an opportunity. Sri M. Dilip, a learned standing counsel for the respondents who accepts notice, is heard for interference in the light of the afore circumstances.

5.

There is no dispute that the notices are addressed to an email which is not provided by the petitioner and that the petitioner is served with the Penalty Order at the same address while earlier notices are returned with the endorsement that there is no such person at the address. These circumstances as also the petitioner’s age persuade this Court to opine that there must be another opportunity with just interference. Therefore, the following: ORDER

The petition is allowed quashing the impugned order under Section 148A(d) dated 11.03.2023 [Annexure-C] and all other subsequent proceedings

as follows with liberty to the petitioner to file response to Notices dated 09.02.2023/21.02.2023 with the first respondent without further notice by 25.09.2026.

Notices/ Orders

Date Provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961

Annexures Notice 18.03.2023

Annexure - D

Order

147 r/w.

Annexure-F Order 13.08.2024 271 F Annexure- G Order 13.08.2024 271 (1)(b) Annexure- H Order 271 (1)(c) Annexure-J

Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

SA Ct:sr

More judgments on Section 148A

All 3,543 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →