SINGE GOWDA RATHNA RAVI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP/19204/2026HC KarnatakaKAHC01042154202615 July 2026Bench: B M SHYAM PRASAD6 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the question of jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 142(1) need not be decided at that stage. It was noted that the respondent could indeed call for details to complete assessment proceedings. Crucially, in related writ proceedings (W.P.No.4850/2025), the petitioner had stated an intention to request an early closure of pending proceedings and indicated that if explanations were accepted, the petitioner might not pursue a decision in those petitions. The Court had taken note of this submission and directed the petitioner to cooperate with the officers for expeditious completion. Therefore, if the jurisdiction to call for accounts and documents was not in dispute and there was a direction for expedited closure, the petitioner should produce the required documents without quibbling over the section referred to. The petition was disposed of, granting the petitioner two weeks to produce the accounts and documents, with a clear observation that such production would not prejudice the petitioner in the pending writ petitions or otherwise. The issue of pre-determination was implicitly set aside by this disposal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Singe Gowda Rathna Ravi, filed a writ petition challenging notices dated 10.04.2025 and 20.05.2026 issued under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. These notices were issued after a search, requiring the petitioner to provide accounts and documents. The petitioner argued that the jurisdiction under Section 142(1) is inappropriate after a search, and that Section 153C should apply. Furthermore, the petitioner contended that the respondent had pre-determined the issue of undisclosed income for the block period of 01.04.2018 to 13.01.2025. The respondent argued that the notice should be read in conjunction with Sections 158BC and 158BD, and denied pre-determination.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is valid when proceedings are pending after a search, and if Section 153C of the Act should have been invoked instead? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 142(1) and Section 153C). 2. Whether the respondent has pre-determined the issue of undisclosed income for the block period by calling upon the petitioner to show cause against a certain disallowance? (Question of law and fact). Assessee's contentions: - The jurisdiction under Section 142(1) is applicable only before a show cause notice is issued. Post-search, Section 153C should be invoked. - The respondent has pre-determined the issue, as evidenced by the notice calling for a show cause against a disallowance of undisclosed income for the block period 01.04.2018 to 13.01.2025. Revenue's contentions: - The notice under Section 142(1) should be read along with Sections 158BC and 158BD of the Act for the block period. - The assertion of pre-determination is denied.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 142(1),Section 153C,Section 158BC,Section 158BD

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 19204 OF 2026 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

SINGE GOWDA RATHNA RAVI AGED 60 YEARS, S/O SINGE GOWDA ADDRESS 05 (OLD NO. 26), LAXMI NIVAS, GROUND FLOOR 3RD CROSS, 8TH MAIN ROAD, RAJ MAHAL VILAS EXTENSION SADASHIVA NAGAR, BENGALURU- 560080. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. JINITA CHATTERJEE., ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2), BANGALORE CR BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.Y.V. RAVI RAJ., ADVOCATE A/W SRI M. DILIP., ADVOCATE)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HC-KAR THE IMPUGNED NOTICE ITBA/AST/F/142(1)/2026- 27/1088403657(1) AND ITBA/AST/F/142(1) 2026- 27/1089101922(1) U/S 142 (1) OF THE ACT DATED 10.04.2025 AND 20.05.2026 AND DECLARE IT ULTRA VIRES IN THE EYE OF LAW (ANNX-B AND C); DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO REFRAIN FROM TAKING ANY FURTHER STEPS PURSUANT TO THE SAID NOTICE AND FROM PROCEEDINGS WITH THE ASSESSMENT; DIRECT THAT ALL PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THE IMPUGNED NOTICES U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT AND THE CONSEQUENT ASSESSMENT BE KEPT IN COMPLETE ABEYANCE UNTIL THE CHALLENGE TO THE SEARCH U/S 132 OF THE ACT IS FINALLY DECIDE BY THIS HONBLE COURT;

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner's grievance is with the Notice dated 10.04.2026 issued under Section 142 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short, the Act’] calling for the accounts and documents in terms of the annexures appended thereto after a search. The HC-KAR search proceedings are subject matter of writ proceedings in W.P.No.4850/2025 [T-IT] and connected matters. Ms. Jenita Chatterjee, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has a two-fold canvass in support of the petitioner's grievance with the Notice. • First, the jurisdiction under Section 142(1) of the Act would only be before Show Cause Notice is issued, but in the present case the proceedings after a search are pending and if any further documents must be called for, the jurisdiction would only be under Section 153C of the Act. • Second, the respondent has pre- determined the issue, and this is seen with the petitioner being called upon to show cause against a certain disallowance in the premise that it is undisclosed income for the block period between 01.04.2018 and 13.01.2025.

HC-KAR

2.

Sri Y. V. Raviraj, the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent, submits that this is not a Notice simplicitor under Section 142(1) of the Act, but it is a Notice that should be read along with Section 158BC and 158BD of the Act for the block period. The learned Senior Standing Counsel also denies the assertion that there is pre- determination in issuing the show cause notice. 3. On the question of jurisdiction to issue Notice under Section 142(1) of the Act, this Court is of the view that this aspect need not detain this Court at this stage as it is not in dispute that the respondent could indeed call for the details to complete the assessment proceedings, and more crucially, in the pending writ proceedings in W.P.No.4850/2025 [T-IT], which relates to the search from which the present proceedings emanate, a statement is made before this Court on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner would request for an HC-KAR early closure of the pending proceedings and that if the petitioner's explanations are accepted in such proceedings, the petitioner may not pursue for a decision presented in that and the two other petitions.

4.

In fact, on 16.06.2026 when the afore submissions are made in W.P.No.4850/2025 [T-IT], this Court, taking on record such submissions, has observed that the petitioner shall co-operate with the officers in the pending proceedings, who shall endeavour to complete the proceedings expeditiously and place the outcome of the proceedings on the next date of hearing. The petition in W.P.No.4850/2025 [T- IT] and the other two petitions are directed to be listed on 06.08.2026. If the jurisdiction to call for accounts and documents are not in dispute and if there is a direction because of a statement made on behalf of the petitioner for an expedited closure of the HC-KAR proceedings, the petitioner must produce those accounts and documents without a quibble on the section referred to. As such, the petition stands disposed of accordingly reserving liberty to the petitioner to produce the accounts and documents as sought for over the next two [2] weeks. It is needless to observe that production of accounts and documents in terms of this Notice cannot prejudice the petitioner in the pending writ petitions or otherwise.

Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

SA Ct:sr

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →