LAKSHME GOWDA GOPALAKRISHNA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP/33706/2024HC KarnatakaKAHC01069635202430 October 2025Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, adopting a justice-oriented approach, held that the petitioner should be given another opportunity to file additional replies and documents to the notice dated 07.08.2024. The Court found merit in the petitioner's grievance that the order under Section 148A(d) was passed prematurely, before the petitioner could fully respond. Consequently, the impugned notices and the order culminating in the penalty order were set aside. The matter was remitted back to the respondent for reconsideration from the stage of the petitioner submitting additional reply. The respondent was directed to consider the additional reply and documents and proceed in accordance with law. No specific issue was left undecided, as the Court provided a procedural remedy.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Lakshme Gowda Gopalakrishna, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging notices and an order issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kolar. The assessment year in question is 2018-19. The petitioner received a notice dated 07.08.2024 under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to which he filed a reply on 20.08.2024, explaining cash deposit sources and furnishing documents. Subsequently, the respondent passed an order dated 30.08.2024 under Section 148A(d) and issued a notice under Section 148 dated 30.08.2024. The petitioner's grievance was that the order under Section 148A(d) was passed prematurely, before he could submit additional replies and documents.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is bad in law in view of Section 149 of the Act? (Question of law). The petitioner argued that the notice under Section 148A(b) was bad in law in light of Section 149 of the Act. The revenue contended that there was no merit in the petition and it was liable to be dismissed. 2. Whether the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was premature, given the petitioner's intention to submit additional replies and documents? (Question of mixed law and fact). The petitioner contended that the reply submitted was partial and the respondent passed the impugned order before the petitioner could file additional replies/documents. The revenue did not record any specific argument on this point, other than a general submission that the petition lacked merit.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A(b),Section 149,Section 148A(d),Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43442 WP No. 33706 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 33706 OF 2024 (T-IT) BETWEEN: LAKSHME GOWDA GOPALAKRISHNA S/O. B.LAKSHME GOWDA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, DALASANUR, V DALASANUR POST SRINIVASAPURA TQ. - 563 126. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KASHINATH KALMATH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAMA MURTHY R., ADVOCATE) AND: THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, NEW EXTENSION, KOLAR - 563 101. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ARAVIND V. CHAVAN, ADVOCATE) *** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICES DATED 07.08.2024 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148A(b) OF THE ACT (ANNEXURE-D) (ITBA/AST/F/148A(SCN)/2024- 25/1067408549(1)) ISSUED FOR THE AY 2018-19 BY THE RESPONDENT, ETC. Digitally signed by CHAITHANYA K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43442 WP No. 33706 of 2024

THIS WRIT 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.The Petitioner humbly pray this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or in the nature of Writ of Certiorari quashing the Notices dated 07.08.2024 issued u/s 148A(b) of the Act (Annexure-D)[ ITBA/AST/F/148A(SCN) /2024- 25/1067408549(1)] issued for the assessment year 2018-2019 by the Respondent; B. The Petitioner humbly pray this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or in the nature of Writ of Certiorari quashing the order dated 30.8.2024 made u/s 148A(d) of the Act, for the assessment F) (ITBA/AST/F/148A/2024. year 2018-2019 (Annexure 25/1068160083(1)] passed by the Respondent; C. The Petitioner humbly pray this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or in the nature of Writ of Certiorari quashing the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act dated 30.08.2024 for the assessment year 2018-2019 (Annexure G) [ITBA/AST/S/148_1/2024. 25/1068161757(1)] issued by the Respondent D. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit, in the interest of justice, in the Petitioner's case."

- 3 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43442 WP No. 33706 of 2024

2.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the memorandum of petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that notice issued by the respondent under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘IT Act’) dated 07.08.2024 was received by petitioner and filed the reply on 20.08.2024, explaining the sources for making cash deposits and furnished copies of RTCs, etc. and contended that the notice under Section 148A(b) is bad in law in view of Section 149 of the Act. Further, the respondent passed an order dated 30.08.2024 under Section 148A(d) of the I.T. Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reply submitted by the petitioner was partial in nature and before the petitioner could file its additional reply / documents, the respondent proceeded to pass the impugned order and therefore, the petitioner is before this Court by way of present petition.

4.

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

- 4 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43442 WP No. 33706 of 2024

5.

A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the petitioner filed its reply dated 20.08.2024 to the notice issued by the petitioner dated 07.08.2024 and thereafter, the respondent passed the impugned order dated 30.08.2024. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the petitioner intended to submit additional reply/documents to the aforesaid notice before which the respondent has passed the impugned order. Under these circumstances, by adopting a justice oriented approach, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned notices, proceedings culminating in the impugned penalty order deserves to be set aside and the petitioner be given another opportunity to file additional reply / documents to the aforesaid notice dated 07.08.2024 and thereafter, the respondent shall consider the said reply / documents and 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-F dated 30.08.2024 passed by the respondent under Section

- 5 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43442 WP No. 33706 of 2024 148A(d) of the I.T. Act and the subsequent notice at Annexure G dated 30.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the I.T. Act, are hereby set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted back to the respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law from the stage of petitioner submitting additional reply to the notice dated 07.08.2024 issued by the respondent. (iv) The respondent shall consider the said additional reply / documents filed by the petitioner and proceed further in accordance with law. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE BMV* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 81 CT-SG

More judgments on Section 148A(b)

All 524 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →