BATTIRA KAVITHA DEVAIAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP/9261/2026HC KarnatakaKAHC01020447202621 July 2026Author: B M SHYAM PRASAD6 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that it would suffice to observe that the question of lack of opportunity is open for examination by the Appellate Authority. The court noted that the Appellate Authority is a fact-finding body capable of examining the matter not only on the grounds of lack of opportunity but also on its merits. Therefore, the court chose not to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The petition was disposed of, reserving liberty to the petitioner to pursue the appeal already filed against the reassessment order. The court did not decide on the merits of the notices or orders themselves, nor did it address the specific grounds for reassessment or penalty.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Battira Kavitha Devaiah, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging several notices and orders related to the assessment year 2017-18. These included show cause notices under Section 148A(b) dated March 23, 2024, and March 31, 2024, an order under Section 148A(d) dated April 5, 2024, and a notice under Section 148 dated April 5, 2024. The petitioner also challenged the reassessment order under Section 147 read with Section 144 read with Section 144B dated January 13, 2026, a demand notice under Section 156 dated January 13, 2026, and penalty notices under Sections 274 read with 270A, 274 read with 271AAC(1), and 274 read with 272A(1)(d), all dated January 13, 2026. The core of the petitioner's grievance was the alleged lack of opportunity to show cause.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the notices and orders issued by the Income Tax Department for the assessment year 2017-18, particularly in light of the petitioner's contention of a lack of opportunity to show cause. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the High Court should intervene to grant an opportunity to show cause against the notice dated March 23, 2024, even though an appeal has been filed. The appeal was filed to save limitation, and the primary grievance is the lack of opportunity. The petitioner relied on the principle that a lack of opportunity can be a ground for intervention. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not explicitly record the revenue's arguments. However, the court's observation implies that the revenue likely argued that the appellate authority is the appropriate forum to address the petitioner's grievances.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148A(b),Section 148A(d),Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 148,Section 156,Section 274,Section 270A,Section 271AAC(1),Section 272A(1)(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9261 OF 2026 (T-IT)

BETWEEN:

BATTIRA KAVITHA DEVAIAH D/O DEVAYYA KUSHALAPPA BOLLANDANDA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS RESIDING AT 628, DEVATHA, 4TH BLOCK, 5TH MAIN, HMT LAYOUT, VIDHYARANYAPURA, BANGALORE 560 040.

…PETITIONER (BY SMT. GIRIJA G P., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(3)(1), BANGALORE BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE - 560 095.

2.

ASSESSMENT UNIT, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE,

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT MINISTRY OF FINANCE 2ND FLOOR, E-RAMP, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, NEW DELHI - 110003.

3.

CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE - 560 095.

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

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO I) QUASHING THE NOTICES UNDER SECTION 148A(B) OF THE ACT DATED 23.03.2024 ITBA/AST/F/ 148A(SCN)/2023-24/ 1063286411(1) NO.(ANNEXURE B) AND DATED 31.03.2024 BEARING NO. ITBA/ AST/F/ 148A(SCN)/ 2023-24/1063800586(1) (ANNEXURE B1) ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18; II) QUASHING THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 148A(D) OF THE ACT DATED 05.04.2024 BEARING DIN NO.ITBA /AST /F / 148A / 2024-25 / 1063946514(1) (ANNEXURE C) PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18; III) QUASHING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT DATED 05.04.2024 BEARING DIN NO. ITBA/ AST/ S/148_1/

2024-25/ 1063946621(1) (ANNEXURE D) ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18; IV) QUASHING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER 147 READ WITH SECTION 144 READ WITH SECTION 144B OF THE ACT DATED 13.01.2026 NO. ITBA /AST/ S/ 147/ 2025- 26/1084707199(1) (ANNEXURE E) PASSED BY THE 2ND V) QUASHING THE NOTICE OF DEMAND UNDER SECTION 156 OF THE ACT DATED 13.01.2026 NO. ITBA/ AST/ S/ 156/ 2025 26/1084707261(1)(ANNEXURE F) ISSUED BY THE 2 VI) QUASHING THE PENALTY NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 RWS 270A OF THE DATED 13.01.2026 BEARING ACT NO.ITBA/PNL/S/270A/2025- 26/1084707273(1)(ANNEXURE G) ISSUED BY THE 2 VII) QUASHING THE PENALTY NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 RWS 271AAC(1) OF THE ACT DATED 13.01.2026 NO.ITBA/PNL/S/271AAC(1)/2025- 26/1084707299(1) (ANNEXURE H) ISSUED BY THE 2 VIII) QUASHING THE PENALTY NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 RWS 272A(1)(D) OF THE ACT DATED 13.01.2026 BEARING DIN NO. ITBA/ PNL/S/ 272A (1)(D)/ 2025-26/ 1084705215(1) (ANNEXURE -J) ISSUED

BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18.

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 petitioner's grievance begins with the Show Cause Notices dated 23.03.2024 and 31.03.2024 [Annexures-B and B1] issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short, the IT Act] and the petitioner has also called in question the subsequent order dated 05.04.2024 [Annexure-C] under Section 148A[d] of the IT Act and the Notice dated 05.04.2024 [Annexure-D] under Section 148 of the IT Act, leading to the Reassessment Order, Penalty/Demand Notices. The details of the impugned Notices and Orders are as follows.

Show Cause 148A(b) 23.03.2024 Annexure-B Show Cause 148A(b) 31.03.2024 Annexure-B1 Order 148A(d) 05.04.2024 Annexure-C

05.04.2024 Annexure-D Reassessment Order

Annexure-E Demand

Annexure-F

r/w 270A Annexure-G

r/w 271AAC(1) Annexure-H 272A(1)(d) Annexure-J

The short question for consideration is, should this Court exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and this question must be addressed in the light of the undeniable fact that the petitioner has filed appeal against the reassessment order.

Smt. Girija G P, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that this Court may intervene to extend an opportunity to the petitioner to show cause to the Notice dated 23.03.2024 notwithstanding the appeal because the appeal is filed to save limitation and the petitioner's grievance is essentially with the lack of opportunity.

It would suffice for this Court to observe that even the question of lack of opportunity is open for examination by the Appellate Authority and in fact, the Appellate Authority would be a fact-finding authority which can examine the matter not only on the lack of opportunity but also on merits.

Hence, reserving liberty to the petitioner to pursue the appeal, the petition stands disposed of.

Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE NV

More judgments on Section 148A

All 3,543 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →