GOWKHA DHARANENDRAIAH JWALAKUMAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP/25216/2025HC KarnatakaKAHC01054652202508 December 2025Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the impugned notices and the proceedings culminating in the impugned order were violative of the principles of natural justice. A perusal of the impugned order dated 30.05.2025 indicated that the respondent had not considered the reply dated 09.05.2025 filed by the petitioner in response to the show-cause notice issued under Section 148A(1) of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the Court was of the considered opinion that the impugned order deserved to be set aside. The Court adopted a justice-oriented approach and directed the respondent to reconsider the matter afresh from the stage of considering the petitioner's reply dated 09.05.2025. Liberty was also granted to the petitioner to submit additional responses. The impugned order at Annexure-C and the notice at Annexure-D were set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the respondent.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Gowkha Dharanendraiah Jwalakumar, a finance lender, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka. The petition challenged notices and an order issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Mysore, concerning Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20. The petitioner sought to quash a notice under Section 148A(1) dated 13.03.2025, an order under Section 148A(3) dated 30.05.2025, and a notice under Section 148 dated 05.06.2025. The core of the petitioner's grievance was that their reply dated 09.05.2025 to the show-cause notice under Section 148A(1) was not considered by the respondent before passing the order under Section 148A(3), thereby violating principles of natural justice.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned order dated 30.05.2025 passed by the respondent under Section 148A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is liable to be quashed for non-consideration of the petitioner's reply dated 09.05.2025, thereby violating principles of natural justice? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the respondent failed to consider their reply dated 09.05.2025 filed in response to the show-cause notice dated 13.03.2025 issued under Section 148A(1). This omission, according to the petitioner, led to the passing of the impugned order under Section 148A(3) without due consideration of their submissions, thus violating the principles of natural justice. Revenue's Contention: The respondent-revenue submitted that there was no merit in the petition and that it was liable to be dismissed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A(1),Section 148A(3),Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51787 WP No. 25216 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 25216 OF 2025 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

GOWKHA DHARANENDRAIAH JWALAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS S/O LT G. V. DHARANENDRAIAH NO. 131, HANSARAJA LANE ASHOKA ROAD, LAKSHKAR MOHALLA, MYSURU H. O. – 571 001 NATURE OF BUSINESS: FINANCE LENDING PRESNTY AT DOOR NO. 866 AND 867, 6TH CROSS, KUMBARAGERI LASHKAR MOHALLA, MYSURU – 571 001 MOB.: 9741974466 EMAIL: jwalakumargd@gamil.com …PETITIONER (BY SMT. JINITA CHATERJEE, FOR SRI. S. PARTHASARATHI, ADVOCATES)

AND:

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1), AND TPS, ROOM NO 113, 1ST FLOOR, AYAKR BHAVAN, REAC, MYSORE – 570 008 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M. THIRUMALESH, ADVOCATE)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE DIGITALLY SIGNED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148A(1) OF THE ACT DATED 13.03.2025 BEARING NO.ITBA/AST/F/148A(SCN)/1/2024-

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

- 2 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51787 WP No. 25216 of 2025

25/1074465785(1) FOR AY. 2019-20 PASSED BY RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE-B) AND ETC.,

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

In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:- “(a) Issue writ of certiorari quashing the digitally signed notice under Section 148A(1) of the Act dated 13.03.2025 bearing No.ITBA/AST/F/148A(SCN)_1/ 2024-25/1074465785(1) for AY: 2019-20 passed by Respondent (Annexure-B); (b) Issue writ of certiorari quashing the digitally signed notice under Section 148A(3) of the Act dated 30.05.2025 bearing No.ITBA/AST/F/148A/2025- 26/1076571965(1) for AY: 2019*20 passed by Respondent (Annexure-C); (c) Issue writ of certiorari quashing the digitally signed notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 05.06.2025 bearing No.ITBA/AST/S/148_1/2025-26/ 1076741669 (1) for AY: 2019-20 passed by Respondent (Annexure-D) (d) Issue writ of prohibition restraining the Respondent to continue the proceedings in pursuance of the digitally signed notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 05.06.2025 bearing No.ITBA/AST/S/148_1/2025-

- 3 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51787 WP No. 25216 of 2025

26/1076741669(1) for AY: 2019-20 passed by Respondent (Annexure-D); (e) Issue writ of mandamus to pass an appropriate order in pursuance of the return of income of AY: 2019-20 filed which is annexed as Annexure-A in accordance with law; (f) Issue any other writ, order or direction in favour of the Petitioner, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.

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 09.05.2025 in order to point out that pursuant to the show-cause notice dated 13.03.2025 issued by the respondent under section 148A(1) of the I.T. Act, the petitioner filed the aforesaid reply to the said show-cause notice. Further, the respondent passed the impugned order dated 30.05.2025 under section 148A(3) of the I.T. Act. The counsel for the petitioner pointed out to the impugned order dated 30.05.2025 in order to show that the respondent did not consider the reply dated 09.05.2025 filed by the petitioner and

- 4 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51787 WP No. 25216 of 2025

proceeded to pass the impugned order thereby violating principles of natural 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 09.05.2025 to the show cause notice issued under Section 148A(1) of the Income Tax Act (for short “the I.T. Act”) by the respondent dated 13.03.2025. It is also borne out from the impugned order dated 30.05.2025 that the respondent has not considered the reply dated 09.05.2025 filed by the petitioner and has proceeded to pass the impugned order. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned notices, proceedings culminating in the impugned order is violative of principles of natural justice and consequently, the impugned order deserves to be set aside by adopting justice oriented approach and by directing the respondent to consider the reply

- 5 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51787 WP No. 25216 of 2025

dated 09.05.2025 filed by 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 order at Annexure-C dated 30.05.2025 and the impugned notice dated 05.06.2025 at Annexure-D, passed/issued by the respondent is hereby set aside.

(iii) The matter is remitted back to the respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law from the stage of considering the reply dated 09.05.2025 filed by the petitioner.

(iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit his additional response/reply along with the documents to the respondent, who shall consider the same and proceed further, in accordance with law.

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

BMC List No.: 2 Sl No.: 107

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →