ICAM SOLUTION PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE ASSESSMENT UNIT

PDF · subscribers
WP/15564/2026HC KarnatakaKAHC01032587202617 June 2026Bench: B M SHYAM PRASAD6 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the petitioner's representative had indeed logged in on 13.03.2026 for the scheduled personal hearing via video conferencing and waited for the Revenue (host) to commence the meeting beyond the scheduled time until 3:30 PM. This fact was considered incontrovertible. The Court reiterated its consistent view that denying a personal hearing violates the principles of natural justice. Therefore, interference was deemed necessary. The Court quashed the impugned Assessment Order dated 21.03.2026, the subsequent Demand Notice dated 21.03.2026, and the Computation Sheet. The proceedings were restored to the stage of personal hearing, directing the respondents to ensure that the petitioner is provided with another opportunity for a personal hearing via video conferencing, as permissible under Section 144B of the Act and in line with standard practice.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, ICAM SOLUTION PRIVATE LIMITED, is challenging an Assessment Order dated 21.03.2026, a Demand Notice, and a Computation Sheet for the assessment year 2018-19. The petitioner claims it was not served with a Notice under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Upon receiving a Show Cause Notice dated 10.03.2026, the petitioner responded on 12.03.2026, requesting a personal hearing via video conferencing. The petitioner was informed of a video conference scheduled for 13.03.2026 between 2:30 PM and 3:30 PM. The petitioner's representative logged in and remained logged in until the portal closed, but no one from the Revenue logged in to conduct the hearing. The petitioner alleges a lack of opportunity.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Assessment Order dated 21.03.2026, issued under Section 147 read with Section 144 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is liable to be quashed on the grounds of denial of natural justice and lack of opportunity for personal hearing. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that the proceedings were concluded on the premise that it failed to avail the opportunity for a personal hearing, despite its representative logging in for the scheduled video conference. The assessment was based on a proposal to enhance goodwill, against which the petitioner should have been allowed to show cause. The petitioner relies on the fact that its representative waited for the Revenue to initiate the video conference, which did not happen. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned standing counsels for the respondents were heard, but their specific arguments are not detailed. However, the Court's observation regarding the petitioner's logged-in status suggests the Revenue did not dispute the factual occurrence of the petitioner being present online.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29721 WP No. 15564 of 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 15564 OF 2026 (T-IT)

BETWEEN:

ICAM SOLUTION PRIVATE LIMITED A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. NAGOOR JEHANGIR RAWTHER AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, 113/A, BOMMASANDRA INUSTRIAL AREA HOSUR ROAD, BANGALORE-560099 KARNATAKA, INDIA …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JOSEPH VERGHESE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. LAKSHMI MENON, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

THE ASSESSMENT UNIT INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, 2ND FLOOR, E-RAMP,

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29721 WP No. 15564 of 2026

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, NEW DELHI, PIN-110003

2.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(1 )(1), BANGALORE, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU – 560095 …RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. M. THIRUMALESH ADVOCATE A/W; SRI. NIRMAL MATHEW, ADVOCATE)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SEC. 147 READ WITH SEC.144 READ WITH SEC.144B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT DATED 21.3.2026 BEARING DIN: ITBA/AST/S/147/2025- 26/1087706284(1 ) ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 (ANNEXURE-Q)

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

- 3 -

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29721 WP No. 15564 of 2026

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has called in question the Assessment Order dated 21.03.2026 [Annexure-Q] under Section 147 read with Section 144 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short, ‘for short, ‘the IT Act’] while also calling in question the Demand Notice and the Computation which are produced as Annexures- R and S respectively. The impugned Assessment Order, Demand Notice and the Computation are for the assessment year 2018-19.

2.

The petitioner’s case stated briefly is [a] that though the petitioner is not served with the Notice under the Assessment Order dated 09.04.2021 under Section 143 (3) of the IT Act, but when served with the Show Cause Notice dated 10.03.2026 a response is filed on 12.03.2026 seeking a personal hearing through video conferencing, [b] that the petitioner was informed of such video

- 4 -

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29721 WP No. 15564 of 2026

conference between 2.30 and 3.30 p.m. on 13.03.2026, and [c] that its representative logged in on the portal and remained logged in even after 03.30 p.m. until the portal closed without anybody from the Revenue logging in to hear the petitioner’s representative. The petitioner alleges lack of opportunity.

3.

Sri Joseph Varghese, the learned counsel for the petitioner, argues that the proceedings are concluded in the premise that the petitioner has not availed the opportunity notwithstanding the afore, and the learned counsel submits that the assessment is based on the proposal to enhance the goodwill against which the petitioner could have shown cause.

4.

Sri M. Thirumalesh and Sri Nirmal Mathew, the learned standing counsels for the respondents, are heard. This Court observes from Annexure-N that the petitioner’s representative had

- 5 -

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29721 WP No. 15564 of 2026

logged in on 13.03.2026 for personal hearing through video conferencing and had waited for the Revenue [host] to start the meeting beyond the schedule till 3.30 p.m. This is incontrovertible, and this Court’s consistent view has been that denial of personal hearing would be a violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, there must be interference restoring the proceedings calling upon the respondents to ensure that there is another opportunity of personal hearing. Hence, the following:

ORDER

The petition is allowed in-part and the impugned Assessment Order dated 21.03.2026 [Annexure-Q] and the subsequent Demand Notice dated 21.03.2026 [Annexure-R] and also the Computation Sheet [Annexure-S] are quashed restoring the proceedings to the stage of personal hearing calling upon the

- 6 -

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29721 WP No. 15564 of 2026

respondents to ensure that the petitioner has the opportunity of personal hearing on video conferencing as is permissible under Section 144B of the Act and the standard practice in this regard.

Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

SA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →