M/S. BHARAT ELECTRONICS LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 23140 OF 2026 (T-IT)

BETWEEN:

M/S. BHARAT ELECTRONICS LIMITED OUTER RING ROAD, NAGAVARA BANGALORE NORTH, ARABIC COLLEGE S.O. BENGALURU-560045. A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956/2013 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MANOJ JAIN, THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, RESIDING AT F-502, F-BLOCK, VASMANI MENLO PARK, THUBARAHALLI, NEAR KUNDALAHALLI GATE, WHITEFIELD, BANGALORE- 560066

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASHANTH S, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

AND:

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

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE ORDER(S), DIRECTIONS, WRIT(S) IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT DIRECTING THE LD. RESPONDENT NO.2 TO QUASH AND SET-ASIDE THE ORDER BEARING DIN AND LETTER NO. DATED ITBA/COM/F/17/2026- 27/1091186920(1) 17.07.2026 ENCLOSED AT ANNEXURE -A, WHICH HAS IMPOSED A CONDITION OF PAYMENT OF 10PERCENT FOR STAYING THE RECOVERY OF THE DISPUTED AMOUNT, AS THE SAME HAS BEEN PASSED WITHOUT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE EXISTENCE OF A STRONG PRIMA FACIE CASE ON MERITS AND THE FINANCIAL BURDEN WHICH SUCH A CONDITION

WOULD IMPOSE ON THE PETITIONER, A PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING.

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, a public sector undertaking, is aggrieved by these two orders: [a] the jurisdictional Assessing Officer's Order dated 19.06.2026 [Annexure - B] and [b] the order by the Principal Commissioner Bengaluru-1 dated 17.07.2026 [Annexure - A]. The jurisdictional Assessing Officer has disposed of the petitioner's application for stay stipulating that 90% of the amount in demand [Rs.1,36,84,46,121/-] is marked as stayed and the balance 10% [Rs.15,20,49,569/-] is marked as collectible.

Order is stayed subject to deposit of 10% of the demand recording that the petitioner's appeal against the Assessment Order is pending. The petitioner has filed an application with the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Bengaluru-1, who, while upholding the terms of the order of stay, has permitted the petitioner to pay 10% in two installments viz., on 15.10.2026 and 31.12.2026. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's application and the subsequent request for modification are dealt in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 29.02.2016 and the Corrigendum issued thereto on the quantum.

shown, it would definitely be within the jurisdiction of Bengaluru-1, to reduce the requirement for deposit below the threshold of 20% of the demand pending in appeal. 4. However, this Court has examined the merits of the petitioner's grievance with the orders of both the jurisdictional Assessing Officer and the jurisdictional Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Bengaluru-1 on perusal of the records and upon hearing Mr. M. Dilip, a learned Standing counsel who accepts notice for the respondents. This Court must observe that both the jurisdictional Assessing Officer and the jurisdictional Principal Commissioner of Bengaluru-1, Bengaluru have not reasoned why only 90% of the amount in demand must be marked as stayed and 10% as collectible. This Court is of the considered view that when the Authorities are required to reason based on certain

parameters under the relevant Circulars, they must decide by giving reasons. 5. As reasons are not forthcoming in both impugned orders, there is occasion for interference. At this stage, both Mr. Prashanth S. and Mr. M. Dilip are heard on the terms for interference. This Court concludes that the interference must be with the Order of the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Bengaluru-1 dated 17.07.2026 restoring the petitioner's application which must be considered in terms of Clause (C) of the Office Memorandum dated 29.02.2016 after extending an opportunity to the petitioner by a reasoned order. Further, Mr. Prashanth S submits that written submissions are filed in the pending appeal and the final outcome is expected soon. This Court is of the view that the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Bengaluru-1 must hear the petitioner on the application and

decide expeditiously by a reasoned order. Hence, the following. ORDER [A] The petition is allowed in part and the Order dated 17.07.2026 [Annexure - A] by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Bengaluru-1 is quashed restoring the petitioner's application for reconsideration stipulating that the petitioner, without any further notice of hearing, shall appear before Bengaluru-1 on 03.08.2026. [B] The Income-tax, Bengaluru-1 shall decide on the restored application within the

next seven [7] days by a reasoned order. [C] It is needless to observe that there cannot be any precipitation until the petitioner's restored application is reconsidered.

Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE