KOVI VEERARAGHAVULUNAIDU, vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT

PDF · subscribers
WP/10364/2026HC KarnatakaKAHC01022947202609 June 2026Bench: B M SHYAM PRASAD5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court quashed the impugned Assessment Order dated 03.02.2026, the computation sheet, and the demand/penalty notices. The Court was persuaded to intervene due to the petitioner's uncontroverted claim of not being served with notice under Section 148A(b) of the IT Act. The Court relied on its previous observation in WP No. 6410/2026, which set aside orders where the initial notice under Section 142(1) did not allow the time prescribed in the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for the National Faceless Assessment Scheme. The petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to reply to the first Notice under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 04.09.2025. The authorities were directed to enable the petitioner to file their response, with all questions left open for future consideration.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kovi Veeraraghavanainaidu, has filed a writ petition challenging an Assessment Order dated 03.02.2026, along with a computation sheet and a demand notice, all issued by the Assessment Unit of the Income Tax Department. The petitioner claims non-receipt of any notices, including those under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which led to the assessment order being passed without their response. The assessment order was passed under Section 144 read with Section 144B of the Act. The respondents are the Assessment Unit and the Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(2)(5). The petition seeks to quash these orders and notices.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order, computation sheet, and demand notice passed under Section 144 read with Section 144B and Section 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are liable to be quashed on the grounds of non-service of statutory notices, particularly under Section 148A(b) of the Act, thereby denying the petitioner an opportunity to be heard? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that the failure of the tax authorities to serve any notices, including the crucial notice under Section 148A(b), renders all subsequent proceedings, including the assessment order, void. They rely on the principle that an opportunity to respond must be provided when the first notice is issued. Revenue's Contention: The revenue's counsel accepted notice. The judgment notes that the petitioner's case of non-service of notice under Section 148A(b) remains uncontroverted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 144B,Section 156,Section 148A,Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27556 WP No. 10364 of 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 10364 OF 2026 (T-IT)

BETWEEN:

KOVI VEERARAGHAVULUNAIDU, S/O LATE SRI. K. VENKATESULU NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 1013, FLAT NO. 104, VV HOMES, GOKUL ROAD, 3RD STAGE, BEML LAYOUT, BENGALURU 560098.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANNAMALAI S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

ASSESSMENT UNIT INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, REP. BY ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX/INCOME-TAX OFFICER, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ROOM NO.401, 2ND FLOOR, E-RAMP, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27556 WP No. 10364 of 2026

STADIUM, DELHI-110 003.

2.

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7(2)(5), BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE 560095.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.E I SANMATHI., ADVOCATE A/W SRI. NIRMAL MATHEW., ADVOCATE)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO I) QUASHING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 144 RWS 144B DATED 03/02/2026, BEARING DIN ITBA/AST/S/144/2025-26/1085534035(1), PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 1, HEREIN MARKED AS ANNEXURE A1; II) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE COMPUTATION SHEET DATED 03/02/2026 BEARING DIN AND DOCUMENT NO. ITBA/AST/S/324/2025-26/1085534103(1), ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO. 1, HEREIN MARKED AS ANNEXURE A2; III) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE DEMAND NOTICE U/S 156 VIDE DATED 03/02/2026, BEARING DIN AND NOTICE NO. ISSUED BY ITBA/AST/S/156/2025-26/1085534261(1), RESPONDENT NO. 1, HEREIN MARKED AS ANNEXURE A3 AND ETC.

- 3 -

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27556 WP No. 10364 of 2026

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 the Assessment Order dated 03.02.2026 and the subsequent computation and demand/penalty notices that are also even dated. The impugned annexures are produced as Annexures - A1 to A5. The assessment order is without a response from the petitioner, and the petitioner's case is it is not served with any of the notices, including notices under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short the IT Act].

2.

Sri Annamalai S, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the authority's failure to extend an opportunity when the first notice is issued would render all the subsequent proceedings void,

- 4 -

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27556 WP No. 10364 of 2026

and in this regard, the learned Counsel invites this Court's attention to the Order dated 03.03.2026 in WP No. 6410/2026.

3.

Sri E.I. Sanmathi and Sri Nirmal Mathew, the learned Standing counsels for the respondents, are called upon to accept notice for the respondents. This Court in WP No. 6410/2026 has held thus observing that the first Notice under Section 142[1] of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 [for short, the 'Act'] did not allow time limit prescribed in the SOP for National Faceless Assessment Scheme dated 03.08.2022:

"4. It is submitted that it is the initial notice that has been adverted to in the Order-in-Original and once such notice was not replied to due to the absence of sufficient opportunity as provided under the SOP, all consequential proceedings thereon are required to be set aside.

5.

Having perused the notice and the time prescribed for response being in contravention of the time prescribed under D.2.1.1 of the SOP applicable for proceedings under the National

- 5 -

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27556 WP No. 10364 of 2026

Faceless Assessment Scheme, the orders and notices at Annexure-A2 to A7 are set aside. Annexures-B1 to B3, Annexures-C1 to C3, as well as Annexure-D are also set aside."

4.

This Court is persuaded to intervene in the light of this observation because the petitioner's case that it is not served with notice under Section 148A(b) of the IT Act remains uncontroversial. Hence the petition stands disposed of quashing the impugned Assessment Order and the subsequent computation of demand and penalty with liberty to the petitioner to reply to the first Notice under Section 142[1] of the Act dated 04.09.2025. The authorities are called upon to enable the petitioner to file its response. It is needless to observe that all questions are left open for consideration.

Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

More judgments on Section 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →