SRI KEMPARAJU KRISHNAPPA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP/9271/2022HC KarnatakaKAHC01020780202219 November 2025Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR6 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the petition. It was an undisputed fact that the petitioner had not submitted a reply to the Section 142(1) notice. However, considering the petitioner's assertion that his omission to respond was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances, and sufficient cause, and his plea for one more opportunity, the Court deemed it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned assessment order and demand notice. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer (Respondent No.1) for reconsideration. The Assessing Officer was directed to proceed afresh from the stage of the petitioner submitting a reply to the Section 142(1) notice. Liberty was granted to the petitioner to submit additional pleadings and documents, which the respondent was to consider before proceeding further in accordance with law. The ratio is that where an assessee demonstrates sufficient cause for non-compliance with a notice under Section 142(1) within the stipulated time, the assessment order passed ex-parte can be set aside to provide an opportunity for a proper hearing.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sri Kemparaju Krishnappa, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging an assessment order and demand notice dated March 30, 2022, for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The petitioner contended that he received a notice under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on March 25, 2022, but was granted only two days to file a reply. Due to commencing a new business and being unable to gather the requested information within the short timeframe, the petitioner failed to respond. This led to the impugned assessment order and demand notice being passed without the petitioner's contest. The petitioner argued that his failure to respond was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances, and sufficient cause, and sought an opportunity to present his case.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order dated March 30, 2022, and the demand notice dated March 30, 2022, for Assessment Year 2018-19, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, are liable to be quashed on the grounds of insufficient opportunity to respond to the notice under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (Question of mixed law and fact, turning on Section 142(1) and principles of natural justice). Assessee's contentions: The petitioner argued that the notice under Section 142(1) provided an unreasonably short period of two days for response. This inability to file a reply was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances, and sufficient cause, as the petitioner had commenced a new business and could not gather the required information. Therefore, the impugned orders should be set aside to allow the petitioner one more opportunity to submit his reply and documents. Revenue's contentions: The respondents 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 142(1),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47823 WP No. 9271 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 9271 OF 2022 (T-IT) BETWEEN: SRI KEMPARAJU KRISHNAPPA S/O KRISHNAPPA AGED 48 YEARS, R/AT NO 105, SRI RAMA SAMARTHA, CHEEMASANDRA, VIRGO NAGAR POST, BANGALORE- 560 049 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.V.SESHACHALA, SR.COUNSEL APPEARING FOR SRI. G.S.NAGAHARISH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(3) C R BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU- 560001 2. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE C R BUILDING QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU- 560001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. E.I.SANMATHI., ADVOCATE)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DTD. 30.03.2022 ANNX-F1 AND DEMAND NOTICE DTD. 30.03.2022 ANNX-F2 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19 PASSED BY THE R-1 TO PAY WITHIN 30 DAYS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19 PASSED BY THE R-1. Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

- 2 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47823 WP No. 9271 of 2022

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 30.03.2022 bearing No.ITBA/AST/S/147/2021-22/1042197778(1) Annexure-F1 and demand Notice dated 30.03.2022 bearing No.ITBA/AST/S/147/2021- 22/1042197778(1) Annexure-F2 for the Assessment year 2018-19 passed by the first respondent to pay within 30 days for the assessment year 2018-19 passed by the first respondent. b. 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 Sri.Sreeshachala, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the learned counsel for the petitioner and

- 3 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47823 WP No. 9271 of 2022 the learned counsel for the respondents 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 respondents under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘IT Act’) dated 25.03.2022 was received by petitioner and could not file reply/ documents to the same since the Assessing Officer had granted only two days time to submit reply and the assessee had undergone irreparable loss in Government contract since he had commenced new business and was not in a position to gather the information sought for and therefore the said notice as well as all the further notices went un-noticed by the Petitioner and hence he could not file reply/ documents and contest the proceedings. It is submitted that the inability and omission on the part of the petitioner to submit reply / response along with documents to the

- 4 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47823 WP No. 9271 of 2022 Section-142(1) notice was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause and as such, if one more opportunity is provided to the petitioner to do so by setting aside the impugned orders and notices, the petitioner would do so and respondents may be directed to proceed further in accordance with law. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents 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 it is an undisputed fact that petitioner has not submitted reply / response along with documents to Section -142(1) notice. Under these circumstances, in view of the specific assertion on the part of the petitioner that his inability and omission to submit a reply along with documents to Section-142(1) notice was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause and if one more opportunity is granted, petitioner would submit reply along with documents, I deem it just and

- 5 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47823 WP No. 9271 of 2022 appropriate to set aside the impugned orders dated 30.03.2022 at Annexure-F1 passed under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act and subsequent notice / orders, etc., and remit the matter back to respondent No.1 for reconsideration afresh from the stage of submitting of reply by the petitioner to Section-142(1) notice and to proceed further in accordance with law. 6. In the result, pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby allowed. (i) Impugned notices / orders at Annexures F1 and F2 are hereby set aside. (ii) Matter is remitted back to respondent No.1 for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law from the stage of submitting of reply to the Show Cause Notice under Section-142(1) of the IT Act dated 25.03.2022. (iii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit additional pleadings, documents, etc., to the

- 6 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47823 WP No. 9271 of 2022 respondent, who shall consider the same and proceed further in accordance with law. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE JJ List No.: 3 Sl No.: 16

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →