ULLAL KOJABBA MONU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP/6780/2026HC KarnatakaKAHC01014808202628 July 2026Author: B M SHYAM PRASAD4 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court permitted the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition. The petitioner's counsel submitted a memo stating that an appeal had been preferred before the ITAT and requested condonation of delay. While the petitioner also requested the High Court to condone the delay, the Court was of the considered view that the question of delay must be considered by the ITAT itself. Therefore, the writ petition was disposed of with the direction that the ITAT would consider the issue of delay in filing the appeal. No decision was made on the merits of the original assessment or penalty proceedings.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ullal Kojabba Monu, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging several orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. These included a show cause notice dated December 29, 2021, issued 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 18, 2025, passed under Section 153C read with Section 144C(13), a demand notice dated December 18, 2025, under Section 156, a penalty notice dated December 18, 2025, under Section 274 read with Section 274AA, and another penalty notice dated December 18, 2025, under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c). The petitioner sought to quash these notices and orders on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and being contrary to law.

What were the issues?

The primary issue before the High Court was whether to entertain the writ petition challenging the assessment and penalty proceedings. The petitioner sought to withdraw the writ petition because they had preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) and requested condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The court had to decide whether to permit the withdrawal and whether to direct the ITAT to consider the delay in filing the appeal. The petitioner argued that they had filed an appeal with the ITAT and requested condonation of delay. The revenue did not record any specific arguments in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153C,Section 153A,Section 144C(13),Section 156,Section 274,Section 274AA,Section 271(1)(c),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. 6780 OF 2026 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

ULLAL KOJABBA MONU S/O KOJABBA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/A KANACHUR VILLA, UNIVERSITY ROAD, DERALAKATTE, MANGALORE, KARNATAKA. PIN CODE 575 018. PAN ACGPM4934R …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASANNA B.M., ADVOCATE FOR; SRI. BALRAM R RAO.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

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)

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

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA QUASHING THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 29.12.2021 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 153C READ WITH SECTION 153A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, FOR THE A.Y. 2016-17 DIN- ITBA/AST/S/153C/ 2021-22/1038225818(1) ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-A TO THIS PETITION, AS BEING WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND CONTRARY TO LAW. B) QUASHING THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 18.12.2025 PASSED UNDER SECTION 153C R.WS 144C(13) OF THE ACT FOR A.Y. 2016-17 IN DIN- ITBA/AST/M/153C/2025-26/1083851939(1) ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-M TO THIS PETITION. C) QUASHING THE DEMAND NOTICE DT- 18.12.2025 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 156 OF THE ACT IN DIN- ITBA/AST/156/2025- 26/1083852027(1) ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE - N TO THIS PETITION WHICH IS ARISING OUT OF THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT AND INVALID JURISDICTION. D) QUASHING THE PENALTY NOTICE DATED 18.12.2025 PASSED UNDER SECTION 274 R.W.S 274AA OF THE ACT, IN DIN AND ORDER NO. ITBA/PNL /M /271AA / 2025-26/1084175151 (1) ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE P TO THIS PETITION. E) QUASHING THE PENALTY NOTICE DATED 18.12.2025 PASSED UNDER SECTION 274 R.W.S 274(1)(C) OF THE ACT, IN DIN AND ORDER NO. ITBA/PNL/M/271(1)(C)/2025-26/1083852026(1) ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE Q 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. G) 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 →