KANACHUR SEASONING INDUSTRIES vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP/8329/2026HC KarnatakaKAHC01018227202628 July 2026Author: B M SHYAM PRASAD4 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the withdrawal of the writ petition. The petitioner's counsel informed the court that an appeal had been filed before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) and requested that the delay in filing this appeal be condoned. The High Court, however, held that the question of delay in filing the appeal must be considered by the ITAT itself. Therefore, the writ petition was disposed of with the observation that the ITAT would address the issue of delay. No decision was made on the merits of the original challenges raised in the writ petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kanachur Seasoning Industries, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging several orders and notices issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. These included a show cause notice dated December 29, 2021, under Section 153C read with Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. The petitioner also challenged the final assessment order dated December 22, 2025, under Section 153C read with Section 144C(13) for AY 2017-18, a demand notice dated December 22, 2025, under Section 156 for AY 2017-18, a penalty notice dated December 22, 2025, under Section 274 read with Section 270A for AY 2017-18, and another penalty notice dated December 22, 2025, under Section 274 read with Section 271AA(1) for AY 2017-18. The petitioner sought to quash these notices and orders, and also sought a writ of prohibition against coercive recovery steps.

What were the issues?

The primary issue before the High Court was whether to entertain the writ petition filed by Kanachur Seasoning Industries. The petitioner's counsel submitted a memo seeking permission to withdraw the writ petition because the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) and requested that any delay in filing the appeal be condoned. The revenue did not record any specific arguments in the judgment. The court had to decide whether to allow the withdrawal, considering the pendency of an appeal before the ITAT and the request for condonation of delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153C,Section 153A,Section 144C,Section 156,Section 274,Section 270A,Section 271AA,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. 8329 OF 2026 (T-IT)

BETWEEN:

KANACHUR SEASONING INDUSTRIES D.NO. 2-72/1, N.H,.17 KALLAPU, P.O. PERMANNUR, MANGALURU - 575 017 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER ULLAL KOJABBA MONU AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/A KANACHUR VILLA, UNIVERSITY ROAD, DERALAKATTE, MANGALORE, KARNATAKA. PIN CODE 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 PIN CODE 575001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. DILIP M., ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A 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 UNDER SECTION 153C READ WITH SECTION 153A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17 IN DIN: ITBA / AST / S / 153C / 2021-22 / 1038226712(1) ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-A TO THIS PETITION. B) QUASHING THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED: 22.12.2025 PASSED UNDER SECTION 153C R.W.S 144C(13) OF THE ACT A.Y. 2017-18 DIN: ITBA / AST / M / 153C / 2025-26 / 1083960271(1) ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-L TO THIS PETITION. D) QUASHING THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD: 22.12.2025 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 156 OF THE ACT FOR A.Y.2017.18 DIN.ITBA/AST/S/156/2025.26/ 1083960427 (1) ENCLOSED AS ANNX-M TO THIS PETITION WHICH IS ARISING OUT OF THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT INVALID JURISDICTION. E) QUASHING THE PENALTY NOTICE DATED 22.12.2025 PASSED UNDER SECTION 274 R.W.S 270A OF THE ACT A.Y.2017-18 DIN ORDER NO.ITBA / PNL / S / 270A / 2025-26 / 1083961035 (1) ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE - N TO THIS PETITION. F. QUASHING THE PENALTY NOTICE DATED 22.12.2025 PASSED UNDER SECTION 274 R.W.S 271AA(1) OF THE

ACT A.Y.2017-18 DIN ORDER NO. ITBA / PNL / M / 271AA(1)/2025-26/1084096377(1) ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE - P TO THIS PETITION. G) ISSUE A WRIT OF PROHIBITION OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR 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. H) 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 →