KANACHUR SEASONING INDUSTRIES vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL CIRCLE

PDF · subscribers
WP/8676/2026HC KarnatakaKAHC01019295202628 July 2026Author: B M SHYAM PRASAD4 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the petitioner had filed a memo seeking permission to withdraw the writ petition. The reason provided was that the petitioner had preferred an appeal under Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) and requested condonation of delay in filing this appeal. The Court, however, opined that the question of delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT should also be considered by the ITAT itself. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of, with the understanding that the ITAT would address the issue of delay. No decision was made on the merits of the assessment or penalty proceedings.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kanachur Seasoning Industries, represented by its partner Ullal Kojabba Monu, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka. The petition challenged several orders and notices issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1, Mangaluru. These included a show cause notice dated 29.12.2021 under Section 153C read with Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20. It also challenged the final assessment order dated 24.12.2025 under Section 153C r.w.s 144C(13), a demand notice dated 24.12.2025 under Section 156, a penalty notice dated 24.12.2025 under Section 274 r.w.s 271AA(1), and another penalty notice dated 24.12.2025 under Section 274 r.w.s 270A, all for AY 2019-20. The petitioner sought to quash these notices and orders and sought a direction to restrain coercive recovery steps.

What were the issues?

The primary issue before the High Court was whether to entertain the writ petition challenging the assessment and penalty proceedings for AY 2019-20. The petitioner sought to quash the show cause notice, final assessment order, demand notice, and penalty notices issued under Sections 153C, 153A, 144C(13), 156, 274, 271AA(1), and 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that the assessment and subsequent notices were issued without valid jurisdiction. The revenue, through the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, was the respondent. The petitioner later filed a memo stating they had preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) and sought condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The petitioner's contention was that the ITAT was the appropriate forum for adjudication of the dispute, including the delay in filing the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153C,Section 153A,Section 144C(13),Section 156,Section 274,Section 271AA(1),Section 270A,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. 8676 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 - 575018 …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

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

(BY SRI. DILIP M., ADVOCATE)

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 2019-20 IN DIN: ITBA / AST / S / 153C / 2021- 22 / 1038226729(1) ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-A TO THIS PETITION. B) QUASHING THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 24.12.2025 PASSED UNDER SECTION 153C R.W.S 144C(13) OF THE ACT FOR A.Y. 2019-20 DIN ITBA/AST/M/153C/2025-26/1084032116(1) ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-L TO THIS PETITION. C)QUASHING THE DEMAND NOTICE DT 24.12.2025 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 156 OF THE ACT FOR AY 2019-20 IN DIN ITBA/AST/S/156/2025-26/1084032163 (1) ENCLOSED AS ANX-M TO THIS PETITION WHICH IS ARISING OUT OF THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT AND INVALID JURISDICTION. D) QUASHING THE PENALTY NOTICE DATED 24.12.2025 PASSED UNDER SECTION 274 R.W.S 271AA(1) OF THE ACT FOR A.Y.2019-20 IN DIN & ORDER NO. ITBA / PNL / S / 271AA (1)/2025-26/ 1084066395 (1) ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE - N TO THIS PETITION. E) QUASHING THE PENALTY NOTICE DATED

24.12.2025 PASSED UNDER SECTION 274 R.W.S 270A OF THE ACT FOR A.Y.2019-20 IN DIN AND ORDER NO. ITBA/PNL/S/270A/2025-26/1084032210(1) ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE - P 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.

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 →