M/S. THE NEW MANGALORE PORT LISTED DOCK WORKERS vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP/2545/2024HC KarnatakaKAHC01003893202412 November 2025Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR4 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed the petition and set aside the impugned order dated October 18, 2022, passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 264. The Court reasoned that although the Principal Commissioner's order mentioned the replies and documents submitted by the petitioner, it was evident from the record that these submissions had not been properly considered. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Principal Commissioner for reconsideration afresh. The Court directed the reconsideration to commence from the stage of considering the petitioner's reply dated September 27, 2021. Liberty was also granted to the petitioner to submit additional responses and documents, which the Principal Commissioner was to consider before proceeding in accordance with the law.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. The New Mangalore Port Listed Dock Workers Housing Co-operative Society Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka. The petition challenged an order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Respondent No. 1) under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated October 18, 2022, for Assessment Year 2020-21. The impugned order was issued after the Income Tax Officer (Respondent No. 2) had issued notices to the petitioner on September 22, 2021, and October 5, 2021. The petitioner had submitted replies and documents on September 27, 2021, and October 7, 2021, in response to these notices. The petitioner contended that despite referring to these submissions, the Principal Commissioner had not considered them before passing the order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2020-21 is liable to be quashed on the ground that the submissions and documents provided by the petitioner were not considered. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the Principal Commissioner, while passing the order under Section 264, had referred to the replies and documents submitted by the petitioner but had failed to consider them. This failure to consider the material placed on record vitiated the order. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue in response to the petitioner's arguments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 264

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47139 WP No. 2545 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 2545 OF 2024 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

M/S. THE NEW MANGALORE PORT LISTED DOCK WORKERS HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI. ASHOK K AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI. V RAMAKRISHNA 4811, WARD NO.11 NMPT GODOWN OFFICE PANAMBUR MANGALORE – 575 010 PAN AAAAT6557E (UNDER REGISTERED KARNTAKA CO-OP SOCIETIES ACT, 1959) …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANNAMALAI S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI AAYAKAR BHAVAN PLOT NO.5 EDC COMPLEX, PATTO PLAZA PANAJI, GOA – 403 001

2.

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD (1)(1), CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, N G ROAD, ATTAVARA MANGALORE – 575 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SUSHAL TIWARI, ADVOCATE)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER

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

- 2 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47139 WP No. 2545 of 2024

PASSED UNDER SECTION 264 OF THE ACT DTD 18.10.2022 BEARING F NO. 02/264/PR CIT PNJ/2022-23 ISSUED BY THE R-1 FOR THE AY 2020-21 HEREIN MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A.

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:- “i) Issue a writ of Certiorari or direction in the nature of a writ of certiorari quashing the order passed under Section 264 of the Act dated 18.10.2022 bearing F.No.02/264/Pr.CIT.PNJ/2022-23 issued by the Respondent No.1 for the assessment year 2020-21 herein marked as Annexure – A. ii) And pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fir and proper in the interest of justice and equity.”

2.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that pursuant to the respondent No.2 issuing notice dated 22.09.2021 to the petitioner, the petitioner submitted a reply dated 27.09.2021 subsequent to which the respondent No.1 through respondent No.2

- 3 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47139 WP No. 2545 of 2024

issued one more notice dated 05.10.2021 calling for information from the petitioner who submitted replies along with documents dated 07.10.2021 in response to which the 1st respondent proceeded to pass the impugned order under Section 264 of the IT Act, aggrieved by which, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. 4. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, having regard to the fact that though respondent No.1 has referred to the replies and documents submitted by the petitioner, the same have not been considered by the respondent No.1 and has proceeded to pass the impugned order, the same deserves to be set aside and matter be remitted back for reconsideration afresh. 5. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is hereby allowed. ii) The impugned order at Annexure – A dated 18.10.2022 issued by respondent No.1 is hereby set aside.

- 4 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47139 WP No. 2545 of 2024

iii) The matter is remitted back to the 1st respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law from the stage of considering the reply dated 27.09.2021 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 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.: 40

More judgments on Section 264

All 338 judgments and leading authorities on Section 264 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →