ULLAL KOJABBA MONU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP/6833/2026HC KarnatakaKAHC01014806202628 July 2026Author: B M SHYAM PRASAD4 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of the writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner filed a memo stating that the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) under Section 253 of the Act and requested condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The Court, however, held that the question of delay must also be considered by the ITAT. Therefore, the petition was disposed of with the observation that the ITAT would consider the issue of delay. No decision was made on the merits of the case.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ullal Kojabba Monu, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging a show cause notice dated December 29, 2021, issued under Section 153C read with Section 153A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2015-16. The petitioner also challenged the final assessment order dated December 18, 2025, passed under Section 143(3) read with Sections 153C, 92CA, and 144C, along with demand notices and penalty notices issued under Sections 156, 274 read with Section 274AA, and Section 274(1)(c) of the Act for the same assessment year. The petitioner sought to quash these notices and orders on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and being contrary to law.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the show cause notice dated December 29, 2021, issued under Section 153C read with Section 153A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2015-16, is without jurisdiction and contrary to law? 2. Whether the final assessment order dated December 18, 2025, passed under Section 143(3) read with Sections 153C, 92CA, and 144C of the Act for AY 2015-16, is void ab initio? 3. Whether the demand notice dated December 18, 2025, issued under Section 156 of the Act, arising from the impugned assessment and invalid jurisdiction, is liable to be quashed? 4. Whether the penalty notices dated December 18, 2025, passed under Section 274 read with Section 274AA and Section 274(1)(c) of the Act, are liable to be quashed? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner sought to quash the impugned notices and orders on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and being contrary to law. The petitioner later filed a memo seeking to withdraw the writ petition as an appeal had been preferred before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), and requested condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the respondent revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153C,Section 153A,Section 143(3),Section 92CA,Section 144C,Section 156,Section 274,Section 274AA,Section 274(1)(c),Section 253

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. 6833 OF 2026 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

ULLAL KOJABBA MONU S/O KOJABBA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/A KANACHUR VILLA, UNIVERSITY ROAD, DERALAKATTE, MANGALORE, KARNATAKA - 575 018. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASANNA B.M., ADVOCATE FOR; SRI. BALRAM R RAO.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, CIRCLE -1, ALBURUERQUE HOUSE, OPPOSITE FORUM MALL, PANDESHWARA, MANGALURU, KARNATAKA - 575001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. DILIP M,ADVOCATE)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA QUASHING THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 29.12.2021 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 153C READ WITH SECTION 153A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, FOR THE ASSESSMENTYEAR 2015-16 IN DIN ITBA/AST/S/153C/2021- 22/1038225811(1) ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-B TO THIS PETITION, AS BEING WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND CONTRARY TO LAW. B) QUASHING THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 18.12.2025 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTIONS 153C, 92CA AND 144C OF THE ACT FOR A.Y. 2015-16 IN DIN ITBA/AST/M/153C/2025-26/1083845004(1) ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-P TO THIS PETITION, WHICH IS BEING VOID AB INITIO. C) QUASHING THE DEMAND NOTICE DT 18.12.2025 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 156 OF THE ACT IN DIN ITBA/AST/153C/2025-26/1083845004(1) ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-Q TO THIS PETITION WHICH IS ARISING OUT OF THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT AND INVALID JURISDICTIONE. D) QUASHING THE PENALTY NOTICE DATED 18.12.2025 PASSED UNDER SECTION 274 R.W.S 274AA OF THE ACT, IN DIN AND ORDER NO. ITBA / PNL / M / 271AA / 2025-26 / 1084241873(1) ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-R TO THIS PETITION. E) QUASHING THE PENALTY NOTICE DATED 18.12.2025 PASSED UNDER SECTION 274 R.W.S 274(1)(C) OF THE ACT, IN DIN AND ORDER NO. ITBA/PNL/M/271(1)(C)

/2025-26/1084241275(1) ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-S TO THIS PETITION. F) DIRECTION RESTRAINING THE RESPONDENTS, THEIR OFFICERS, SERVANTS AND AGENTS FROM TAKING ANY COERCIVE STEPS FOR RECOVERY PURSUANT TO THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT AND DEMAND, PENDING DISPOSAL OF THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION. G) PASS SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER ORDERS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE & EQUITY.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

ORAL ORDER

The learned counsel for the petitioner files a Memo, which reads as under: " The Advocate for the Petitioner submits that he may be permitted to withdraw the aforesaid Writ Petition, as the Petitioner has preferred an appeal under section 253 of the Act. It is humbly requested that, a delay in filing of an appeal before the ITAT may please be condoned. "

In continuation, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner has filed an appeal with the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) and that this Court may condone the delay. However, this Court is of the considered view that the question of delay must also be considered by the ITAT. As such, the petition stands disposed of.

Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

NV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0

More judgments on Section 153C

All 9,619 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153C →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →