SRI. ACHALARAM BORANA vs. ASSESSING OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP/21670/2022HC KarnatakaKAHC01049810202214 November 2025Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the impugned assessment order deserved to be set aside. The Court noted that the petitioner had filed a reply to the show-cause notice and was granted a personal hearing via video conferencing on 21.09.2022. However, due to technical glitches, the video conferencing was abruptly disconnected, preventing the petitioner's authorized representative from completing their submissions. The Court found that the Assessing Officer proceeded to pass the impugned order without granting another opportunity for personal hearing. Adopting a justice-oriented approach, the Court decided to set aside the order and remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration. The Assessing Officer was directed to grant another opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, who would also be at liberty to submit a fresh response and documents. The Assessing Officer was to then proceed in accordance with law.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sri. Achararam Borana, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging an assessment order dated 27.09.2022 passed by the Assessing Officer (1st respondent) for Assessment Year 2020-21. The petitioner contended that the assessment order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Specifically, during a video conference personal hearing on 21.09.2022, technical glitches caused the connection to disconnect abruptly, preventing the petitioner's authorized representative from completing their submissions. The petitioner's subsequent request for another hearing was not granted before the impugned order was passed. The revenue argued that the petition lacked merit.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order dated 27.09.2022 passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is liable to be quashed for violating the principles of natural justice by not granting a further opportunity of personal hearing after technical glitches disrupted the initial hearing? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed without granting another opportunity of personal hearing after the video conference disconnected due to technical issues, thereby violating principles of natural justice. The petitioner relied on the reply dated 16.09.2022 to a show-cause notice and the attempt to attend the hearing on 21.09.2022. Revenue's Contention: The revenue submitted that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47524 WP No. 21670 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 21670 OF 2022 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

SRI. ACHALARAM BORANA S/O. KHEEMA RAMJI BORANA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, MARSHAL PHARMACEUTICALS, NO. 708, 10TH A MAIN ROAD, 34TH CROSS, JAYANAGAR 4TH BLOCK, BENGALURU – 560 011. (SENIOR CITIZENSHIP NOT CLAIMED) …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M. V. SESHACHALA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. NAGHARISH G.S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

ASSESSING OFFICER INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL E ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NO.412-413, 1ST FLOOR, OPP. METRO PILLAR NO. 793, DWARKA MOR, NEW DELHI – 110 059.

2.

JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(3), BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU – 560 095.

3.

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU – 560 095. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka

- 2 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47524 WP No. 21670 of 2022

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DTD 27.09.2022 PASSED BY THE R1 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE- D3 BEARING NO.ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2022-23/1046012036(1) IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2020-21 AND ETC.,

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

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

ORAL ORDER

In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:- “a. Issue a Writ of certiorari to quash the assessment order dated 27.09.2022 passed by the first respondent produced as Annexure-D3 bearing No.ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2022-23/1046012036(1) in respect of the Assessment Year 2020-21. b. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Assessing Officer to consider the order passed for the earlier Assessment Year 2018-19 dated 20.09.2022 wherein similar commission paid to agents distributing drugs is held as permissible deduction vide Annexure – F1. c. 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 counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

- 3 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47524 WP No. 21670 of 2022

3.

In addition to reiterating various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, the learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the reply dated 16.09.2022 at Annexure C4 to point out that pursuant to the show- cause notice dated 12.09.2022 issued by the 1st respondent the petitioner filed the aforesaid reply to the said show-cause notice. Further, the 1st respondent granted an opportunity of personal hearing on 21.09.2022 at 2:30 PM to which the petitioner’s authorized representative appeared via video conferencing. However, due to technical glitches, the video conferencing abruptly disconnected. The authorized representative of the petitioner on the same day citing the technical glitch in the previous video conferencing addressed a representation to the 1st respondent seeking another opportunity. Subsequently the 1st respondent passed an Assessment order dated 27.09.2025 under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the I.T. Act. The counsel for the petitioner pointed out to the impugned order dated 26.09.2025 in order to show that the 1st respondent without granting another opportunity of personal hearing for the petitioner has proceeded to pass the impugned order thereby violating principles of natural

- 4 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47524 WP No. 21670 of 2022

justice and as such, the petitioner is before this Court by way of present petition.

4.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents- revenue submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed.

5.

A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the petitioner filed its reply dated 16.09.2022 to the notice issued by the respondent dated 12.09.2022. It is also borne out from the impugned order that the 1st respondent had granted an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner on 21.09.2022 through video conferencing. The said video conferencing was abruptly disconnected due to technical glitches and the authorised representative of the petitioner could not complete his submissions and thereafter the 1st respondent without granting another opportunity of personal hearing has passed the impugned order. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order deserves to be set aside by adopting justice oriented approach and by directing the 1st respondent to grant

- 5 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47524 WP No. 21670 of 2022

another opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and thereafter proceed further in accordance with law.

6.

In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER (i) The petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned Assessment order at Annexure-D dated 27.09.2022 passed by the 1st respondent is hereby set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted back to the 1st respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law directing the 1st respondent to grant another opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. (iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit his response/reply along with the documents to the 1st respondent, who shall consider the same and proceed further in accordance with law.

Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MDS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 69

More judgments on Section 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →