RAJAREDDY BATLAHALLI VENKATARAMANNA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP/10779/2026HC KarnatakaKAHC01024535202610 April 2026Bench: S SUNIL DUTT YADAV3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the order passed under Section 148A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was admittedly an ex-parte order, as observed in paragraph 7 of the order itself. Consequently, the Court found it appropriate to set aside this order. The Court accordingly set aside the order at Annexure-B and remitted the matter back to the stage of the petitioner filing a reply to the notice issued under Section 148A(1) of the Act. The petitioner was directed to appear before the respondent without further notice on May 13, 2026. All contentions of both parties were expressly kept open. The Court did not decide on the merits of the case but provided an opportunity for the petitioner to participate in the proceedings.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, RAJAREDDY BATLAHALLI VENKATARAMANNA, proprietor of Sri Chowdeswari Automobiles, filed a writ petition challenging a notice issued under Section 148A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated March 20, 2025, for Assessment Year 2020-21. The petitioner also challenged the order passed under Section 148A(3) and the subsequent notice under Section 148 of the Act, both issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Chickballapur. The petitioner contended that the proceedings leading to the Section 148 notice were ex-parte, as they were unaware of the Section 148A(1) notice and thus unable to file a reply. The petitioner sought an opportunity to respond by setting aside the Section 148A(3) order and remitting the matter back to the stage of replying to the Section 148A(1) notice, citing bonafide reasons for non-participation.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the proceedings initiated under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, culminating in the order under Section 148A(3) and the subsequent notice under Section 148, are vitiated by non-compliance with principles of natural justice, specifically the opportunity to be heard, for the Assessment Year 2020-21? Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the proceedings were ex-parte because they were not aware of the notice issued under Section 148A(1) of the Act, preventing them from filing a reply. They contended that their non-participation was due to bonafide reasons and sought an opportunity to respond by setting aside the order passed under Section 148A(3) and remitting the matter back to the stage of replying to the notice under Section 148A(1). Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A(1),Section 148A(3),Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20095 WP No. 10779 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 10779 OF 2026 (T-IT) BETWEEN: 1. RAJAREDDY BATLAHALLI VENKATARAMANNA S/O. B.S.VENKATARAMANA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, PROP. SRI CHOWDESWARI AUTOMOBILES, BATLAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST, CHINTAMANI TALUK - 563 125, CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. R. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE AND SRI KASHINATH KALMATH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI RAMA MURTHY R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 1, B.B.ROAD, CHICKBALLAPURA -562 101. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. DILIP., ADVOCATE)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING I) THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S.148A(1) OF THE ACT DATED 20.03.2025 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2020-21 (ANNEXURE A) (ITBA/AST/F/148A(SCN)-1/2024-25/1074749569(1)) ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT AND ETC. Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20095 WP No. 10779 of 2026

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER Petitioner has called in question the validity of the notice issued under Section 148A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') as well as the order passed under Section 148A(3) of the Act. Petitioner has also challenged the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceedings till the issuance of notice under Section 148 are in effect ex-parte proceedings and petitioner was not aware of the notice under Section 148A(1) of the Act so as to make out his reply. It is submitted that an opportunity may be granted by setting aside the order passed under Section 148A(3) of the Act and remitting the matter back to the stage of reply to the notice under Section 148A(1) of the Act by condoning the non-

- 3 -

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20095 WP No. 10779 of 2026 participation. It is further submitted that non-participation was due to bonafide cause. 3. Taking note that admittedly the order under Section 148A(3) of the Act is an ex-parte order as is clear from the observations made at Para 7 of the order, it would be appropriate to set aside the said order. 4. Accordingly, the order at Annexure-B is set aide. The matter is remitted to the stage of reply to the notice under Section 148A(1) of the Act. 5. Petitioner to appear before respondent without further notice on 13.05.2026. All contentions are kept open. 6. Petition is disposed of in terms of the above. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VP

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →