SRI SHUBHU SAMPIGEDALU VEERAPPA vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP/21148/2026HC KarnatakaKAHC01046277202615 July 2026Author: B M SHYAM PRASAD5 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the interest of justice would require the impugned Reassessment Order to be set aside. The Court found merit in the petitioner's contention regarding the denial of a reasonable opportunity. The Court noted that the petitioner had updated their email credentials on the portal, but claimed non-receipt of communications. The Court viewed the ex-parte reassessment order as defeating the purpose of the remand by the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals]. Consequently, the Court quashed the reassessment order and the notices. The proceedings were remanded to the first respondent, with liberty granted to the petitioner to file a response to the Show Cause Notice dated February 24, 2026, as enabled on the portal. The petitioner was directed to appear before the first respondent on September 16, 2026, without further notice. The issue of the source of cash deposits was not decided on merits.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, an individual agriculturist, is aggrieved by a Reassessment Order dated March 20, 2026, for Assessment Year 2016-17, passed under Section 147 read with Sections 250 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The reassessment proceedings were recommenced after the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] interfered with an earlier reassessment order and restored the proceedings for reconsideration. The petitioner alleges a denial of a reasonable opportunity to present their case. The impugned order states that after the appellate order, the petitioner was issued intimations, notices, and reminders under Section 142(1) and a Show Cause Notice dated February 24, 2026. The petitioner claims non-receipt of these communications on their updated email ID and also claims non-receipt of a notice purportedly sent by speed post.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the reassessment order and notices are liable to be quashed on the ground of denial of a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to make submissions and present evidence regarding the source of cash deposits? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argues that despite updating their email credentials on the portal, they did not receive any intimations, notices, or reminders on that email ID. Furthermore, they claim to have not received a notice purportedly sent by speed post. The petitioner contends that the purpose of the remand by the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] is defeated by an ex-parte reassessment order, thus violating principles of natural justice. They seek a fresh opportunity to make submissions and present evidence. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record specific contentions made by the revenue. Mr. M Dilip, learned standing counsel for the respondent, accepted notice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 250,Section 144B,Section 142(1),Section 271F,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 21148 OF 2026 (T-IT) BETWEEN: SRI SHUBHU SAMPIGEDALU VEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O. LATE S.E. VEERAPPA, 49-B, SAMPIGEDALU VILLAGE, SHANIVARSAMTHE HOBLI, HAMDLI POST, SOMWARPET TK., KODAGU 571 235 NATURE OF BUSINESS INDIVIDUAL AGRICULTURIST. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. JINITA CHATTERJEE., ADVOCATE A/W SMT. DIMPY KUMARI., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S. PARATHASARATHI., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSMENT UNIT INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT UNIT, NORTH BLOCK, DELHI 110 001. Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

2.

THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, ITO WARD 01, MADIKERI-SRIVALLI BUILDING, MADIKERI, MYSURU - 571201.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.M. DILIP., ADVOCATE)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (A) QUASHING THE DIGITALLY SIGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 147 R.W.S.250 R.W.S.144B OF THE ACT DATED 20.03.2026 BEARING NO.ITBA/AST/S/147/2025- 26/1087681998(1) FOR AY 2016-17 PASSED BY 1ST RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE-D); (B) QUASHING THE DIGITALLY SIGNED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 271F OF THE ACT DATED 01.05.2024 BEARING NO.ITBA/PNL/F/271F/2024-25/1064541631(1) FOR AY 2016-17 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE-D1); C) QUASHING THE DIGITALLY SIGNED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT DATED 05.09.2024 BEARING NO.ITBA/PNL/F/271(1)(C)/2024- 25/1068370859(1) FOR AY 2016-17 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE-D2); (D) ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO GIVE A FRESH OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE SUBMISSIONS AND ALLOW HIM TO EVIDENCE TO SUPPPORT SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS.

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 with Reassessment Order dated 20.03.2026 [Annexure-D] under Section 147 read with Sections 250 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short, ‘the Act’]. This re-assessment order is for the assessment year 2016- 17. The assessment proceedings are re-commenced after the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] has interfered with the earlier Reassessment Order by its Order dated 03.01.2025 while restoring proceedings for reconsideration. The petitioner alleges denial of a reasonable opportunity. The impugned Reassessment Order reads that after the Order in the appeal, the petitioner has been issued with the Intimation, Notices and Reminders under Section 142[1] of the Act and the Show Cause

Notice dated 24.02.2026. Ms. Jinita Chatterjee, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M Dilip, a learned standing counsel for the respondent who accepts notice for the respondent, are heard on whether there must be interference on the ground of lack of opportunity.

Ms. Jinita Chatterjee submits that the petitioner has updated the credentials on the portal giving an email-ID to file the appeal with the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals], but none of Intimation, Notices and Reminders have been received by the petitioner on this email ID nor has the petitioner received the Notice dated 08.09.2025 purportedly sent by speed post. The learned counsel emphasizes that the purpose of remand is defeated with an ex-parte Reassessment Order. This Court is of the view that the interest of justice will require the impugned Reassessment Order to be set aside with liberty to the petitioner to file

response to the Show Cause Notice dated 24.02.2026 as enabled on the portal. Hence the following. ORDER [A] The petition is allowed in-part. [B] The impugned Reassessment Order dated 20.03.2026 [Annexure-D] and the Notices dated 01.05.2024 [Annexure-D1], 05.09.2024 [Annexure-D2] of respondents are quashed. [C] The proceedings are remanded to the first respondent with liberty to the petitioner to file response to the Show Cause Notice dated 24.02.2026 as enabled on the portal. [D] The petitioner shall appear before the first respondent on 16.09.2026 without further notice. AN/- Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →