SMT. SRIRAMA RAJGOPAL RAKSHA, vs. UNION OF INDIA,

PDF · subscribers
WP/11346/2026HC KarnatakaKAHC01024722202610 April 2026Bench: S SUNIL DUTT YADAV5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that since the order under Section 148A(d) and the subsequent assessment order were passed ex-parte, and the petitioner asserted non-receipt of notice and a desire to reply to the Section 148A(b) notice, it was appropriate to remit the matter. The Court set aside the assessment order (Annexure-F1) and the order passed under Section 148A(d) (Annexure-B1), along with other related annexures (B2, C, D, E, and F2). The matter was remitted to the stage of replying to the notice under Section 148A(b) (Annexure-A). The petitioner was directed to appear before the Income Tax Officer on 19.05.2026. All contentions were kept open. The ratio decidendi is that procedural fairness, including proper service of notice and an opportunity to be heard, is crucial, and ex-parte orders based on non-service or lack of opportunity can be set aside and remitted.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Smt. Srirama Rajgopal Raksha, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order and allied proceedings. The petitioner contended that a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not served. The revenue had considered an amount of Rs. 13,30,000/- as unaccounted investment. The petitioner asserted that if granted an opportunity, she could demonstrate this allegation to be false. The assessment order was passed ex-parte as the petitioner did not reply to the show-cause notice. The petitioner argued that she had not received notice of any proceedings and requested the matter be remitted to the stage of replying to the Section 148A(b) notice.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order and allied proceedings are liable to be quashed on the ground that the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not served on the petitioner? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that no notice of any proceedings was served. If served, she would have filed a reply to the Section 148A(b) notice and demonstrated that the assumption of unaccounted investment was false. The petitioner relied on the principle that an opportunity of being heard is fundamental. Revenue's Contention: The revenue did not explicitly record any contentions in the judgment. However, the fact that an ex-parte assessment order was passed implies the revenue proceeded based on the available information and the petitioner's failure to respond.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A(b),Section 148A(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: SMT. SRIRAMA RAJGOPAL RAKSHA,

- 1 -

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20034 WP No. 11346 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. 11346 OF 2026 (T-IT) BETWEEN: SMT. SRIRAMA RAJGOPAL RAKSHA, D/O. RAJGOPAL S., AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT NO.448/E, RAKSHA NILAYA, 8TH CROSS, 13TH MAIN, H.M.T. LAYOUT, GOKUL 1ST STAGE, MATHIKERE, BENGALURU 560 054. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. TEJAS N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110 001. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - I, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. Digitally signed by MAMATHA R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20034 WP No. 11346 of 2026 3. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(3)(1), NO.59, HMT BHAVAN, 3RD FLOOR, BELLARY ROAD, GANGANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 032. 4. THE NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), C BLOCK, 4TH FLOOR, CIVIC CENTRE, MINTO ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110 002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DILIP, ADVOCATE)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN DATED 30-03-2023 BEARING DIN AND NOTICE NO.ITBA/AST/F/148A(SCN)/ 2022- 23/1051709934(1) (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.,

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

- 3 -

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20034 WP No. 11346 of 2026 ORAL ORDER Learned counsel, Sri. Dilip accepts notice for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has called in question the validity of the assessment order at Annexure-F1. The petitioner has also challenged certain allied proceedings. It is the case of the petitioner that the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') was not served and if the petitioner was served, they would have made out a reply as regards the grounds made out in the said notice. 3. It is submitted that the authority has taken note of an amount of Rs.13,30,000/- to be an unaccounted investment, while the petitioner asserts that she would demonstrate the said allegation and assumption is false on the basis of material available, if opportunity is granted.

- 4 -

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20034 WP No. 11346 of 2026 4. It is further noticed that the assessment order passed at Annexure-F1 also would reveal that the assessment proceedings have also concluded exparte, as the petitioner did not reply to the show-cause notice. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no notice of any of the proceedings and if matter is remitted to the stage of reply to 148A(b) notice, petitioner would make out reply and demonstrate that the assumption of unaccounted investment is a false assumption. 6. Noticing that the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act is exparte as well as the assessment order at Annexure-F1 also being exparte, it would be appropriate to remit the matter for fresh consideration. Taking note of the assertion of the petitioner that they would make out grounds at the stage of reply to notice issued under Section 148A(b) itself and demonstrate that there was no unauthorised investment, it would be appropriate to set

- 5 -

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20034 WP No. 11346 of 2026 aside the order at Annexure-F1 as well as the order passed under Section 148A(d) at Annexure-B1 and remit the matter to the stage of 148A(b) notice at Annexure-A. 7. Accordingly, the order at Annexure-F1 and B1 are set aside, so also Annexures-B2, C, D, E and F2 are set aside and the matter is remitted to the stage of reply to notice at Annexure-A. Petitioner to appear before respondent No.3 without further notice on 19.05.2026. All contentions are kept open. Accordingly, petition is disposed of. SD/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE MCR

More judgments on Section 148A(b)

All 524 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →