SRI SHANTHAKUMAR MALAGI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER

- 1 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43172 WP No. 12181 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 12181 OF 2023 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

SRI SHANTHAKUMAR MALAGI, S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT VILLA NO.78, PRESTIGE OASIS, DODDABALLAPUR ROAD, ADDE VISHWANATHAPURA BANGALORE-560 064. …PETITIONER (BY SRI H.V SESHACHALA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI G.S NAGHARISH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY ORDER DATED 02.06.2023 BEARING NO. ITBA/AST/F/17/2023- 24/1053537641(1) PASSED BY THE R-1 ANNEXURE-L3 FOR AY 2017-18.

Digitally signed by NANDINI R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43172 WP No. 12181 of 2023

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL ORDER 1. In this petition, the petitioner seeks following reliefs:

"Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to: a)Issue a Writ of certiorari to quash the preliminary order dated 02.06.2023 bearing No. ITBA/AST/F/17/2023- 24/1053537641(1) passed by the first respondent Annexure-L3 for A.Y 2017-18. b) Issue such other Writ or direction as this Hon'ble Court deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the present case." 2. Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the memorandum of petition and referring to the material on record, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the impugned preliminary order at Annexure-L3 dated 02.06.2023 in order to point out that the said order purports to reject the objections/claim of the petitioner based on an alleged valuation

- 3 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43172 WP No. 12181 of 2023

report made by the District Valuation Officer, which is impermissible in law and alleged in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court and other Courts and impugned order is vitiated, illegal, arbitrary and the same deserves to be set aside for the following grounds urged in the petition as hereunder: (a) The impugned order is without jurisdiction and contrary to the law in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA VS. ASHISH AGARWAL REPORTED IN (2022) 286 TAXMAN 183 SC; (b) Reopening of assessment based on the report of the Valuation Officer is also without jurisdiction as held by the Apex Court in the case of SMT. AMIYA BALA PAUL VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX REPORTED IN (2003) 262 ITR 407 SC; (c) Reopening assessment based on the opinion of the District Valuation Officer is not permissible under law, in view of the decisions in (I) SMT. KAMALA OJHA VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER REPORTED IN (2017) 397 ITR 197 (CHHATTISGARH; (II) BHOLA NATH MAJUMDAR VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER REPORTED IN (1996) 221 ITR 608 (GAUHATI HIGH COURT);

- 4 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43172 WP No. 12181 of 2023

(III) KAJARIA INVESTMENT & PROPERTIES VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER REPORTED IN (2001) 250 ITR 619 (CALCUTTA); (IV) KAMALAM RAJENDRAN VS. INSPECTING ASSISANT COMMISSIONER OF IT REPORTED IN (1999) 237 ITR 299 (MADRAS); AND (V)ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX T VS. DHARIYA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY REPORTED IN (2010) 328 ITR 515 (SC); (d) The impugned order based on change of opinion is also illegal and without jurisdiction and is impermissible in law in the light of the decision in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD., REPORTED IN (2010) 320 ITR 561 SC; (e) Respondents were not entitled to refer the issue of valuation of District Valuation Officer, that too, after the lapse of more than 16 years from 2007,when the petitioner had already declared the said property in assessment proceedings for the Assessment Year 2008-2009 and fishing and roving enquiry was impermissible and respondents have committed an error in passing the impugned order without rejecting the books of account produced by the petitioner as held by the Apex Court in MADHYA PRADESH INDUSTRIES LTD., VS.

- 5 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43172 WP No. 12181 of 2023

INCOME TAX OFFICER REPORTED IN (1965) 57 ITR 637 (SC) AND SARGAM CINEMA VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX REPROTED IN (2010) 328 ITR 513 (SC). 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. As rightly contended by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, the afore said contentions/grounds/claims put forth by the petitioner have not been considered by the respondents while passing the impugned order, which deserves to be set aside and matter has to be remitted back to the 1st respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. 6. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby allowed. (ii) Impugned Preliminary order dated 02.06.2023 bearing No.ITBA/AST/F/17/2023-24/1053537641(1) passed by the 1st respondent at Annexure-L3 for the Assessment Year 2017-18 is hereby set aside.

- 6 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43172 WP No. 12181 of 2023

(iii) Matter is remitted back to the 1st respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law bearing in mind the observations made above as well as the aforesaid contentions and the judgments relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner.

(iv) All rival contentions of the parties are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same by this Court.

Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

tsn* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51