MR SURESH SRINIVASAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP/10086/2025HC KarnatakaKAHC01022180202524 April 2025Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition. It noted that it was undisputed that the petitioner had not submitted a reply to the show cause notice. However, accepting the petitioner's assertion that the omission was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances, and sufficient cause, the Court deemed it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned ex-parte assessment order dated March 10, 2025, and subsequent notices/orders. The matter was remitted back to the respondent for reconsideration. The respondent was directed to proceed from the stage of the petitioner submitting a reply to the show cause notice dated January 17, 2025. Liberty was granted to the petitioner to submit additional pleadings and documents, which the respondent was to consider before proceeding in accordance with law. The Court did not explicitly leave any issue undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mr. Suresh Srinivasan, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka seeking to quash an ex-parte assessment order dated March 10, 2025, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle DCIT-3, Bangalore. The assessment year in question is 2016-17. The petitioner contended that he did not receive the show cause notice dated January 17, 2025, and was therefore unaware of the proceedings, preventing him from submitting a reply and supporting documents. He claimed this omission was due to bonafide reasons and unavoidable circumstances, and requested an opportunity to respond. The respondent revenue authority argued that the petition lacked merit.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ex-parte assessment order dated March 10, 2025, passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for assessment year 2016-17, is liable to be quashed on the grounds that the petitioner did not receive the show cause notice dated January 17, 2025, and consequently could not submit a reply. Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the show cause notice was not received, and his failure to respond was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances, and sufficient cause. He sought an opportunity to submit his reply and documents. Revenue's contention: The respondent submitted that the petition had no merit and should be dismissed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:16869 WP No. 10086 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 10086 OF 2025 (T-IT)

BETWEEN:

MR. SURESH SRINIVASAN AGED AROUND 35 YEARS S/O SRINIVASAN NO. 25/2, 3RD CROSS PRIYADARSHNI LAYOUT AYYAPPA NAGAR, KR PURAM BANGALORE, KARNATAKA-560036. …PETITIONER

(BY SMT. BORKAR SHEETAL SUBODH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE DCIT-3(1), BANGALORE. …RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. M. DILIP, ADVOCATE)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED EX-PARTE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 10.03.2025, VIDE DIN NO. ITBA/AST/S/147/2024- 25/1074264387(1) UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, VIDE ANNEXURE-B, PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITY, IN RESPECT OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17, UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:16869 WP No. 10086 of 2025

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs: "(i) Issue a Writ of certiorari or in the like nature of quashing the impugned ex-parte assessment order dated 10.03.2025, vide DIN No.ITBA/AST/S/147/2024- 25/1074264387(1) under the Income Tax Act, 1961, vide Annexure-B, passed by the respondent authority, in respect of the relevant assessment year 2016-17, under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

(ii) Issue Writ of Mandamus or in the like nature of writ of direction, directing the respondent authorities to refrain from initiating any kind of proceedings, with respect to the impugned ex-parte assessment order dated 10.03.2025, DIN No.ITBA/AST/S/147/2024-25/1074264387(1) Annexure- B, passed by the respondent authority, in respect of the relevant assessment year 2016-17, under the Income Tax Act, 1961

(iii) Issue Writ of Mandamus, directing the concerned respondent authorities to refrain from any further activities and such initiatives in respect of coercive recovery in respect of impugned demand under the impugned ex-parte assessment order dated 10.03.2025, DIN No.ITBA/AST/S/147/2024-25/1074264387(1) Annexure-B, passed by the respondent authority in respect of the relevant assessment year 2016-17, under the Income Tax Act, 1961

(iv) Issue writ of prohibition, prohibiting the concerned respondent authorities in taking further action, measures or steps and such initiatives in respect of recovery in respect of impugned demand under the impugned ex-parte assessment order dated 10.03.2025, DIN No.ITBA/AST/S/147/2024- 25/1074264387(1) Annexure-B passed by the respondent authority; in respect of the relevant assessment year 2016- 17, under the Income Tax Act, 1961;

(v) Issue any other writ, order or direction in favour of the petitioner, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and

- 3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:16869 WP No. 10086 of 2025

proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice."

2.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent 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 show cause notice dated 17.01.2025 issued by the respondent was not received by petitioner and he was not aware of the notice and consequently, petitioner could not submit his reply / response along with documents to the said notice. It is submitted that the inability and omission on the part of the petitioner to submit reply / response along with documents to the show cause 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 respondent submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed.

- 4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:16869 WP No. 10086 of 2025

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 show cause notice dated 17.01.2025. 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 show cause 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 appropriate to set aside the impugned orders at Annexure–B dated 10.03.2025 passed under Section 147 read with 144 of the Income Tax Act and subsequent notice / orders, etc., and remit the matter back to respondent for reconsideration afresh from the stage of submitting of reply by the petitioner to the show cause notice dated 17.01.2025 and to proceed further in accordance with law. 6. In the result, pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby allowed. (ii) Impugned ex-parte assessment order dated 10.03.2025 at Annexure - B is hereby set aside.

- 5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:16869 WP No. 10086 of 2025

(iii) Matter is remitted back to the respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law from the stage of submitting of reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 17.01.2025.

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

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

NBM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 21

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →