SRI V MUNIYELLAPPA vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT

PDF · subscribers
WP/30039/2026HC KarnatakaKAHC01066035202630 September 2026Bench: B M SHYAM PRASAD6 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed the writ petition. The court held that the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, could not be sustained because the notice under Section 148A(b) was issued on March 23, 2022. This was based on the uncontroverted position that for reassessment proceedings concerning Assessment Year 2015-16, the notice had to be issued prior to April 1, 2021. The court relied on the concession made by the Revenue before the Apex Court and the law laid down in Union of India and Others vs. Rajeev Bansal, (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC). The court also noted that it had disposed of similar petitions on this ground, citing the order of a Division Bench of the same court in Income-Tax Officer, Ward-6[3][1] and others vs. Venkatala Iyappa Rajanna, 2025 SCC Online Kar 25214. Consequently, the impugned notices and order were quashed. The challenge to Section 147A of the Act was restricted by the petitioner to the impugned notices and orders.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sri V Muniyellappa, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging notices and an order issued under Sections 148A(b), 148A(d), and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. These proceedings were initiated for the Assessment Year 2015-16. The petitioner sought to quash these notices and the order, and also challenged the insertion of Section 147A of the Act as illegal and arbitrary. The respondents included various Income Tax Department authorities and the Union of India. The court heard the parties on the sole ground concerning the validity of issuing a notice under Section 148 of the Act on or after April 1, 2021.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2015-16, can be sustained when the notice under Section 148A(b) was issued on March 23, 2022. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that in light of the concession made by the Revenue before the Apex Court and the decision in Union of India and Others vs. Rajeev Bansal, (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC), reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 cannot be sustained if the notice was not issued prior to April 1, 2021. Since the notice under Section 148A(b) was dated March 23, 2022, the proceedings are invalid. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue on this point, other than their appearance through counsel.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 30039 OF 2026 (T-IT)

BETWEEN:

SRI V MUNIYELLAPPA S/O LATE VENKATASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, 400, IST FLOOR, 13TH CROSS, NEXT TO HAMILTON HOMES APARTMENTS, RELIABLE DOLLARS COLONY, PHASE 2, GATTAHALLI, BENGALURU-560099.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. JOSEPH VARGHESE., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

ASSESSMENT UNIT INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, REP BY ADDL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ROOM NO.401, 2ND FLOOR, E-RAMP, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM,

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HC-KAR DELHI-110003.

2.

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(3)(3), BANGALORE, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560095.

3.

THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KARNATAKA AND GOA, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, NO.1, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

4.

UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, KARTAVYA BHAVAN-1, NEW DELHI-110001.

5.

CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.E.I. SANMATHI., ADVOCATE A/W SRI. NIRMAL MATHEW., ADVOCATE)

HC-KAR THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO I) QUASHING THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148A(B) OF THE ACT DATED 23.03.2022 BEARING DIN AND NOTICE NO. ITBA/AST/F/148A(SCN)/2021- 22/1041369770(1) HEREIN MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A1; II) QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 148A(D) OF THE ACT DATED 31.03.2022 BEARING DIN NO. ITBA/AST/F/148A/2021-22/1042383099(1) HEREIN MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A2; III) QUASHING THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT DATED 31.03.2022 BEARING DIN NO. ITBA/AST/S/148- 1/2021-22/1042396434(1) HEREIN MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A3; IV) TO HOLD THAT THE IMPUGNED INSERTION OF SECTION 147A OF THE ACT IN ANNEXURE-N IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY, UNREASONABLE, VOID, UNFAIR AND VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 14 AND ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED SECTION 147A OF THE ACT ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-N.

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

The petitioner's grievance is with the commencement of reassessment proceedings with the issuance of notice under Section 148A[b] of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short, the Act’] on 23.03.2022. The details of the impugned Orders/Notices1 which are for the Assessment Years 2015-16 are as follows.

1 The petitioner has challenged the validity of Section 147A of the Act, but the petitioner is restricting the challenge to the impugned notices and orders.

Sl. No. Notices / orders Date Provisions of income tax Act, 1961 Annexures 1. Notice 23.03.2022 148A(b) A1 2. Order 31.03.2022 148A(d) A2 3. Notice 31.03.2022 148 A3 HC-KAR Sri. Joseph Varghese, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri. E.I. Sanmathi and Sri. Nirmal Mathew, the learned Senior Standing Counsel/Standing Counsel, who accept notice for the respondents, are heard for the disposal of the petition on the short ground whether the notice under Section 148 of the IT Act could be issued on 01.04.2021 and after.

The petitioner’s case hinges on the assertion that in view of the concession made by the Revenue before the Apex Court and the law laid down in Union of India and Others vs. Rajeev Bansal, (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC), the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Act cannot be sustained. If re-assessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2015-16 are to be sustained, the notice had to be issued prior to 01.04.2021 and because the notice under Section 148A[b] of the Act is dated 23.03.2022, the HC-KAR proceedings cannot be sustained. In fact, because this is an uncontroverted position, this Court has disposed of similar petitions in the light of the afore and the orders of a Division Bench of this Court in Income- Tax Officer, Ward-6[3][1] and others vs. Venkatala Iyappa Rajanna, 2025 SCC Online Kar 25214. Hence, the following.

ORDER The writ petition is allowed quashing the following subject to the observation as aforesaid.

Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Notices/orders Date Provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 Annex- ures Notice 23.03.2022 148A(b) A1 Order 31.03.2022 148A(d) A2 Notice 31.03.2022 148 A3 NV

More judgments on Section 148A

All 3,543 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →