SRI. S T PRASAD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS )

PDF · subscribers
WP/19522/2026HC KarnatakaKAHC01042796202607 July 2026Author: B M SHYAM PRASAD6 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition. It set aside the Order-in-Appeal dated 30.03.2026, restoring the appeal for due consideration by the first respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)). The Court noted that while the appellate authority is a fact-finding forum, the petitioner's claim of undergoing treatment for a terminal illness and the significant time lag between notices (2021 to 2025) and the appeal order (2026) persuaded the Court to interfere. The Court directed that the appeal be considered after collating necessary details from the bank to verify the account into which cash deposits were received. The Court did not interfere with the scrutiny assessment order itself but focused on restoring the appellate proceedings for a proper hearing. No specific issue was left undecided, as the Court's decision was to remand the matter for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sri S.T. Prasad, a former proprietor of Penguin Security Services Enterprises, challenged an assessment order dated 29.12.2017 and an appeal order dated 30.03.2026. The assessment order, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, pertained to Assessment Year 2011-12 and demanded tax and interest of Rs. 25,03,000. The appeal order, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), confirmed this demand. The petitioner argued that the cash receipts were not related to him and that the appeal order was ex parte. He also claimed he was undergoing cancer treatment during the appeal proceedings and could not participate.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should interfere with the Order-in-Appeal dated 30.03.2026, which confirmed a tax and interest demand of Rs. 25,03,000 for AY 2011-12, when the petitioner claims the appeal was decided ex parte due to his medical condition and that the cash receipts were not attributable to him. Assessee's Contentions: - The petitioner contends that the cash receipts forming the basis of the assessment do not relate to him and he can demonstrate this. - The Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is an ex parte order. - The petitioner was undergoing treatment for cancer during the period the appeal proceedings were ongoing and was unable to participate. Revenue's Contentions: - The revenue, through its counsel, argued that the appellate authority is a fact-finding forum where all aspects can be examined, including verifying bank details to ascertain account ownership. - The revenue did not explicitly argue against the petitioner's claim of medical inability to participate, but highlighted the petitioner's non-compliance with multiple notices.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 19522 OF 2026 (T-IT)

BETWEEN:

SRI. S T PRASAD (AGED ABOUT 68 YRS) FORMER PROP OF PENGUIN SECURITY SERVICES ENTERPRISES, NO.6/7, 1ST CROSS, 3RD MAIN, NEW THARUGPET, BENGALURU-560002.

…PETITIONER (BY SMT. ARUNA BHAT., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. AJAY T., ADVOCATE) AND:

1.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WARD NO.5(2)(2), BMTC COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA,

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

BANGALORE-560095.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO.5(2)(2), BMTC COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560095.

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

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING A) IMPUGNED APPEAL ORDER DATED 30.03.2026 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 CONFIRMING TAX AND INTEREST DEMAND AMOUNT OF RS. 25,03,000 (RUPEES TWENTY-FIVE LAKHS THREE THOUSAND ONLY) UNDER SECTION 250 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 VIDE ANNEXURE-A; B) IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29.12.2017 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 DEMANDING TAX AND INTEREST AMOUNT OF RS. 25,03,000 (RUPEES TWENTY-FIVE LAKHS THREE THOUSAND ONLY) UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 VIDE ANNEXURE-B.

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 has called in question the Assessment Order dated 29.12.2017 and the Order- in-Appeal dated 30.03.2026. The petitioner with these two orders prevailing will have to answer the demand for tax and interest in a sum of Rs.25,03,000/- as of the date of the scrutiny assessment order. Smt. Aruna Bhat, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that:

[a] the scrutiny assessment is completed on the ground that the petitioner has received certain cash receipts into his account, but he has not offered the same for taxes, [b] the petitioner can demonstrate that the account into which cash receipts are received does not relate to him, and [c] the Order-in-Appeal is an ex parte order.

The appellate authority has tabulated the date of the notices sent to the petitioner while observing that the petitioner [appellant therein] has not responded to any of these notices. The tabulation is as under:

Sl. No. Date of Notice Date of hearing Remarks 1. 15.01.2021 22.07.2021 06.04.2023 17.04.2023 3. 10.03.2025 14.03.2025 4. 24.04.2025 29.04.2025 5. 02.05.2025 09.05.2025 6. 20.06.2025 26.06.2025

Smt. Aruna Bhat submits that the petitioner, during the relevant time, was diagnosed as suffering from

Cancer and was under treatment and as such could not participate in the proceedings.

3.

Sri M. Thirumalesh, a learned Senior Standing Counsel who accepts notice for the respondents, is heard on the question of this Court's interference either with the Scrutiny Assessment Order Dated 29.12.2017 or the Order-in-Appeal dated 30.03.2026. This Court must opine that the appellate authority is another fact-finding forum and every aspect could be gone into by this authority. The appellate authority can verify the details available with the concerned bank to ascertain whether the subject account relates to the petitioner or not.

4.

This Court must observe that if the first notice is in the year 2021, the next notice is in the year 2023 and the last of the notices is either in March or April or May, 2025, and the Order-in- Appeal is passed on 30.03.2026. There is a time-lag, and the petitioner's case is that, after being

diagnosed with terminal illness, he was under treatment. These circumstances persuade this Court to interfere not with the Scrutiny Assessment Order but with the Order-in-Appeal to restore the proceedings for due consideration observing that such consideration must be after collating all the necessary details from the bank to verify into whose account the cash deposits are received. Hence the following. ORDER

The petition is allowed. The Order- in-Appeal dated 30.03.2026 [Annexure-A] is set aside restoring the appeal for due consideration by the first respondent in the light of this Court's order.

Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE NV

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →