ULLAL KOJABBA MONU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP/6254/2026HC KarnatakaKAHC01014160202628 July 2026Author: B M SHYAM PRASAD4 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Karnataka, while considering the oral order, noted that the learned counsel for the petitioner filed a memo stating the petitioner's intention to withdraw the writ petition. The reason cited was that the petitioner had preferred an appeal under Section 253 of the Act before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The petitioner also requested condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT. The Court, however, was of the considered view that the question of delay must also be considered by the ITAT. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of. No decision was made on the merits of the issues raised in the writ petition, as the matter was withdrawn by the petitioner to pursue an appeal before the ITAT.

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 2017-18. The petitioner also sought to quash the final assessment order dated December 26, 2025, passed under Section 153C read with Section 144C(13), the demand notice dated December 26, 2025, under Section 156, a penalty notice dated December 26, 2025, under Section 274 read with Section 270A, and another penalty notice dated December 26, 2025, under Section 274 read with Section 271AA(1). The petitioner sought directions to restrain coercive recovery steps pending the petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the show cause notice dated 29.12.2021 issued under Section 153C read with Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2017-18 is without jurisdiction and contrary to law? 2. Whether the final assessment order dated 26.12.2025 passed under Section 153C read with Section 144C(13) of the Act for AY 2017-18 is liable to be quashed? 3. Whether the demand notice dated 26.12.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act is liable to be quashed? 4. Whether the penalty notice dated 26.12.2025 passed under Section 274 read with Section 270A of the Act is liable to be quashed? 5. Whether the penalty notice dated 26.12.2025 passed under Section 274 read with Section 271AA(1) of the Act is liable to be quashed? The petitioner's contention, as presented through a memo, was that they wished to withdraw the writ petition as they had preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) and sought condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The revenue's contentions are not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153C,Section 153A,Section 144C(13),Section 156,Section 274,Section 270A,Section 271AA(1),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. 6254 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 - 575 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. DILIP M., ADVOCATE)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 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 A.Y 2017-18 IN DIN- ITBA/AST/S/153C/2021-22/1038225821(1) ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-C TO THIS PETITION, AS BEING WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND CONTRARY TO LAW. B) QUASHING THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 26.12.2025 PASSED UNDER SECTION SECTIONS 153C R.W.S 144C(13) OF THE ACT FOR A.Y. 2017-18 IN DIN- ITBA/AST/S/153C/2025-26/1084103689(1) ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-Q TO THIS PETITION. C) QUASHING THE DEMAND NOTICE DT- 26.12.2025 ISSUED UNDER SECTION

OF THE ACT IN DIN- ITBA/AST/S/156/2025-26/1084103873(1) ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE - R TO THIS PETITION WHICH IS ARISING OUT OF THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT AND INVALID JURISDICTION. D) QUASHING THE PENALTY NOTICE DATED 26.12.2025 PASSED UNDER SECTION 274 R.W.S 270A OF THE ACT, IN DIN AND ORDER NO. ITBA/PNL/S/270A/2025-26/1084103751(1) ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE - S TO THIS PETITION. E) QUASHING THE PENALTY NOTICE DATED 26.12.2025 PASSED UNDER SECTION 274 R.W.S 271AA(1) THE ACT, IN DIN AND ORDER NO. OF ITBA/PNL/S/271AA(1)/2025- 26/1084108406(1) ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-T 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 AND EQUITY.

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 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 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →