MR.SUMAN BAGRECHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP/18935/2026HC KarnatakaKAHC01041241202607 July 2026Author: B M SHYAM PRASAD9 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court held that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated March 23, 2022, was contrary to law because it did not provide the mandatory minimum notice period of seven days to the petitioner. This finding was based on the plain reading of Section 148A(b) and was supported by the Division Bench judgment in Income Tax Officer vs. Venkatala Iyappa Rajanna. The Court reasoned that a failure to comply with the minimum notice period requirement renders the notice invalid and vitiates all subsequent proceedings. Consequently, the Court quashed the notice dated March 23, 2022, and all subsequent orders and notices, including the order under Section 148A(d), the notice under Section 148, the ex-parte assessment order, and the penalty and interest orders under Sections 271F, 271(1)(b), and 271(1)(c). The Revenue was granted liberty to recommence proceedings if permissible in law. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mr. Suman Bagrecha, challenged several notices and orders issued by the Income Tax Department. These included a notice under Section 148A(b) dated March 23, 2022, an order under Section 148A(d) dated March 30, 2022, and a notice under Section 148 dated March 31, 2022, all issued by the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward No. 6(3)(1). The petitioner also challenged an ex-parte assessment order dated March 8, 2023, and consequential computation and demand notices issued by the Assessment Unit. Further, orders under Sections 271F, 271(1)(b), and 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with their respective computation sheets and demand notices, issued by the Assessment Unit, were also under challenge. The writ petition was filed before the High Court of Karnataka.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated March 23, 2022, which provided a response period of less than seven days, is contrary to law and vitiates the subsequent proceedings? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 148A(b) of the IT Act). Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the notice under Section 148A(b) dated March 23, 2022, which required a response by March 27, 2022, did not provide the minimum statutory notice period of seven days as contemplated under Section 148A(b) of the IT Act. Reliance was placed on the Division Bench decision of the High Court in Income Tax Officer vs. Venkatala Iyappa Rajanna (Writ Appeal No. 612/2025), which held that a notice failing to provide at least seven days is contrary to law and vitiates the proceedings. Revenue's contention: The learned standing counsel for the respondents accepted notice and was heard. The judgment does not record any specific argument against the petitioner's contention, other than implicitly relying on the validity of the notices and orders.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148A(b),Section 148A(d),Section 148,Section 271F,Section 271(1)(b),Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 18935 OF 2026 (T-IT)

BETWEEN:

MR. SUMAN BAGRECHA SON OF MR PARASMAL JAIN, AGE ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 124, 9TH MAIN, 6TH CROSS, RMV EXTENSION, SADASHIVA NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560080.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. HEMA KUMAR K., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD NO 6 (3) (1) BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560095.

2.

PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK,

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560095.

3.

ASSESSMENT UNIT REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL / JOINT / DEPUTY/ ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX / INCOME TAX OFFICER INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ROOM NO 401, 2ND FLOOR E -RAMP, JAWARHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM DELHI - 110003.

4.

NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL / JOINT / DEPUTY/ ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX / INCOME TAX OFFICER INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ROOM NO 401, 2ND FLOOR E -RAMP, JAWARHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM DELHI - 110003. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.M. DILIP., ADVOCATE A/W SRI. VINAYAKA S PANDIT., ADVOCATE)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASHING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148A(B) DATED 23.03.2022 ITBA/AST/F/148A(SCN)/2021- 22/1041351710(1) (ANNEXURE-A), (II) ORDER UNDER SECTION 148A(D) DATED 30.03.2022 BEARING DIN NO.

ITBA/AST/F/148A/2021-NO. 22/1042189651(1) (ANNEXURE- A1), AND (III) NOTICE UNDER SECTION

31.03.2022 ITBA/AST/S/148-1/2021-22/1042248607(1) (ANNEXURE -A2), ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT; II. QUASHING (I) EX-PARTE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 08.03.2023 BEARING DIN NO. ITBA/AST/S/147/2022- 23/1050529902(1), (ANNEXURE -B) (II) COMPUTATION 08.03.2023 ITBA/AST/S/114/2022-23/1050530390(1) (ANNEXURE - B1) AND (III) NOTICE OF DEMAND DATED 08.03.2023 ITBA/AST/S/156/2022- 23/1050530117(1) (ANNEXURE -B2) ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT; III. ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 271F OF IT ACT DATED 15.09.2023 ITBA/PNL/F/ 271F/2023- 24/10561265520(1) ANNEXURE -C), (II) COMPUTATION 15.09.2023 ITBA/PNL/F/271F/2022-23/1050526175(1) (ANNEXURE C1) AND (III) NOTICE OF DEMAND DATED 15.09.2023 NO ITBA/PNL/S/156/2023- 24/1056126339(1) (ANNEXURE -C2) ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT;IV. ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF ACT 18.09.2023 BEARING NO. ITBA/PNL/F/271(1)(B)/2023- 24/1056189659(1) (ANNEXURE-D), (II) COMPUTATION

18.09.2023 2023201540413626284T (ANNEXURE- D1) AND (III) NOTICE OF DEMAND DATED 18.09.2023 BEARING ITBA/PNL/S/156/2023-24/1056189050(1) (ANNEXURE D2) ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT; V. ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF IT ACT DATED 22.09.2023 BEARING NO.ITBA/PNL/F/271 (1) (C) /2023-24 /1056415380 (1) (ANNEXURE-E), (II) COMPUTATION 22.09.2023 ITBA/PNL/S/ 271(1)(C)/2022-23/1050526173(1) (ANNEXURE -E1) AND (III) NOTICE OF DEMAND DATED 22.09.2023 BEARING DIN NO. ITBA/PNL/S/156/2023-24/1056415287 (1) (ANNEXURE E2) ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

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 petitioner has called in question an ex parte Assessment Order dated 08.03.2023 [Annexure-B] and the consequential Computation including the Demand for Penalty and Interest. The impugned

Assessment Order dated 08.03.2023 is produced as Annexure - B and the other Notices, Computation and Demands are produced as Annexures -A to A2, B1 to B2, C to C2, D to D2 and E to E2. Sri K. Hema Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, seeks this Court’s interference on the short ground of the petitioner not being afforded the minimum notice period as contemplated under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short, the IT Act’].

2.

Sri Hema Kumar, relying upon Annexure– A, a notice under Section 148A(b) of the IT Act dated 23.03.2022, submits that a notice is issued calling upon the petitioner to file a response electronically, if any, by 27.03.2022, but, as observed by a Division Bench of this Court in Income Tax Officer vs. Venkatala Iyappa Rajanna [in Writ Appeal No.612/2025 disposed of on 05.08.2025] the notice must be issued extending an opportunity of not less than seven days and if notice is issued without this

minimum opportunity, the notice would be contrary to law and as such the whole proceedings would be vitiated.

3.

Sri M. Dilip, a learned standing counsel who accepts notice for the respondents, is heard in the light of the afore. The Division Bench in the afore decision has observed thus:

“5. It is clear from the plain reading of Clause (b) of Section 148A of the Act, that a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act is required to provide an opportunity to the assessee to respond to the information which may suggest that assessee’s income has escaped assessment. The minimum period of such notice is stipulated as "not less than seven days". In the present case, the impugned notice was issued on 20.03.2022 and the Assessee was called upon to furnish a reply on or before 25.03.2022. Indisputably, the impugned notice did not comply with the requirement of providing a minimum period of seven days to respond to the said notice.

6.

The impugned notice is contrary to law as rightly pointed out by the learned Single Judge.”

4.

From the exposition as afore, the petition must succeed impugned proceedings commencing with the Notice under Section 148A (b) dated 23.03.2022 [Annexure-A] must be set aside. At this stage, Sr M.Dilip submits that this Court may reserve liberty to Revenue to re-initiate proceedings subject to those proceedings being permissible in law. In the light of the afore, the following: ORDER

The petition is allowed, and the impugned Notice dated 23.03.2022 [Annexure-A] and the following are quashed without prejudice to the Revenue to recommence the proceedings if permissible in law: a) The Order dated 30.03.2022 under Section 148A(d) of Act [Annexure-A1] Notice under Section 148 of the IT Act dated 31.03.2022 [Annexure-A2];

b) The ex parte Assessment Order dated 08.03.2023 [Annexure-B]; the Sheet 08.03.2023 [Annexure-B1] Notice of Demand dated 08.03.2023 [Annexure-B2]; c) The Order under Section 271F of the IT Act dated 15.09.2023 [Annexure- C]; the Computation Sheet dated 15.09.2023 [Annexure-C1] and the Notice of Demand dated 15.09.2023 [Annexure-C2]; d) The Order under Section 271 (1)(b) of the IT Act dated 18.09.2023 [Annexure-D]; dated 18.09.2023 [Annexure-D1] and Notice of Demand 18.09.2023 [Annexure-D2]; e) The Order under Section 271(1)(c) of Act 22.09.2023

[Annexure-E], Sheet dated 22.09.2023 [Annexure- E1] and the Notice of Demand dated 22.09.2023 [Annexure-E2].

Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

SA Ct:sr

More judgments on Section 148A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →