SHRI SHIVARUDRAPPA S/O KASHAPPA KIRAGI vs. THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

PDF · subscribers
WP/101710/2022HC KarnatakaKAHC02005606202221 March 2025Bench: JYOTI MULIMANI4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the action of the respondents in passing the order under Section 148A(d) and issuing the notice under Section 148 without considering the petitioner's reply to the Section 148A(b) notice was incorrect. The Court observed that the petitioner had submitted a detailed reply, which was annexed to the writ petition, but this reply was not considered in the order passed by the Income Tax Officer. Consequently, the Court found that the matter required a remand. The notices and the order passed by the first respondent were quashed. The matter was remanded to the first respondent to consider the petitioner's reply and pass a fresh order under Section 148A(d) after issuing a reminder notice. The petitioner was granted liberty to furnish further documents and clarifications, and all contentions of the parties were kept open. The petitioner was also to be accorded a personal hearing if requested.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shri. Shivrudrappa, filed a writ petition challenging notices issued by the Income Tax Department. The first respondent issued notices dated March 21, 2022, April 1, 2022, and April 7, 2022. The petitioner argued that he had submitted a detailed reply to the Section 148A(b) notice, but the respondents passed an order under Section 148A and issued a notice under Section 148 without considering his reply. The respondents' counsel justified the authority's actions and sought dismissal of the petition. The High Court perused the writ papers and noted that the petitioner's reply, submitted in response to the Section 148A(b) notice, was not considered in the order passed by the Income Tax Officer.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order passed under Section 148A(d) and the subsequent notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are liable to be quashed for non-consideration of the petitioner's reply to the Section 148A(b) notice. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner contended that the respondents erroneously passed the order under Section 148A and issued the notice under Section 148 without considering the detailed reply submitted by the petitioner in response to the Section 148A(b) notice. Revenue's Contention: The revenue justified the action of the authority and submitted that the writ petition may be dismissed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5204 WP No. 101710 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 101710 OF 2022 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

SHRI. SHIVARUDRAPPA S/O KASHAPPA KIRAGI, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: PLOT NO.18E, SECTOR NO.55, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT-587 102. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANGRAM S. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 AND T.P.S., BAGALKOT, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT-587 102.

2.

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HUBBALLI, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI-580 025. DIST: DHARWAD-580 001. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.THIRUMALESH., ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5204 WP No. 101710 of 2022

ORAL ORDER

Sri.Sangram S.Kulkarni., counsel for the petitioner and Sri.M.Thirumalesh., counsel for the respondents have appeared in person.

2.

The captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of certiorari to quash the notices issued by the first respondent dated 21.03.2022 bearing notice No: ITBA/AST/F/148A(SCN)/2021- 22/1041150579(1), dated 01.04.2022 bearing notice No: ITBA/AST/F/148A/2022-23/1042423441(1) and dated 07.04.2022 bearing notice No: ITBA/AST/S/148_1/2022-23/1042621801(1) vide Annexures-A, C and D. 3. Counsel Sri.Sangram S.Kukarni., in presenting his arguments strenuously urged that in response to Section 148A(b) notice, the petitioner has submitted a detailed reply. However, the respondents without considering his reply, erroneously passed the order under Section 148A of the Act and subsequently issued notice under Section 148 of the Act. 4. By way of reply, counsel Sri.M.Thirumalesh., justified the action on the part of the authority and submitted that the writ petition may be dismissed.

- 3 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5204 WP No. 101710 of 2022

5.

Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care. 6. A perusal of the writ papers reveals that in response to notice under Section 148A(b), the petitioner has submitted the reply. The reply submitted by the petitioner is furnished along with the writ petition and the same is marked as Annexure-B, it runs almost six pages. However, in the order, the Officer has not considered the reply that was given by the petitioner. In my view, the action on the part of the respondents is incorrect. Hence, the matter requires a remand. Therefore, the order passed under Section 148A(d) and the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act are liable to be set aside. 7. The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The notice issued by the first respondent dated 21.03.2022 bearing No: ITBA/AST/F/148A(SCN)/2021-22/1041150579(1), the order dated 01.04.2022 bearing No: ITBA/AST/F/148A/2022-23/1042423441(1) and the notice dated 07.04.2022 bearing No: ITBA/AST/S/148_1/2022-23/1042621801(1) vide Annexures-A, C and D are quahsed.

- 4 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5204 WP No. 101710 of 2022

8.

The matter is remanded to the first respondent to consider the reply of the petitioner and to pass a fresh order under Section 148A(d), after issuance of a reminder notice to the petitioner. A liberty is reserved for the petitioner to furnish further documents and clarifications. All contentions of the parties are kept open. If the petitioner asks for personal hearing, the same must be accorded to him. 9. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed and remanded.

Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP/RH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35

More judgments on Section 148A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →