MR HANUMANTHAPPA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP/13443/2025HC KarnatakaKAHC01027530202523 July 2025Bench: SURAJ GOVINDARAJ6 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition. While acknowledging that the respondent authorities were not at fault for passing orders based on an insufficient reply from the petitioner, the Court was of the considered opinion that one more opportunity should be granted to the petitioner. The Court quashed all the impugned orders dated 30.03.2022 (under Section 148A), 22.03.2024 (under Section 147), demand notice dated 22.03.2023 (under Section 156), order dated 25.03.2023 (under Section 148A), order dated 21.02.2024 (under Section 147), and demand notice dated 21.02.2024 (under Section 156). The matter was remitted to the respondent No.1 (ITO) for fresh consideration. The petitioner was directed to submit a detailed reply along with all relied-upon documents on 31.07.2025 at 2:30 p.m., without requiring any further notice. The respondent No.1 was directed to consider the same and pass necessary orders. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mr. Hanumanthappa, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging several orders passed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward-1, Shivamogga, and the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru. The challenged orders pertain to assessment years 2015-16 and 2016-17. Specifically, the petitioner sought to quash orders passed under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, assessment orders under Section 147, and demand notices under Section 156. The petitioner's primary grievance was that his reply to a notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was not considered by the respondent authorities before passing the impugned orders.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned orders passed under Section 148A and Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential demand notices under Section 156 are liable to be quashed on the ground that the petitioner's reply to the notice under Section 142(1) was not considered. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the orders passed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) were erroneous because his reply to the notice under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not considered by the authorities before issuing the impugned orders. The petitioner sought to quash these orders and demand notices. Revenue's Contention: The judgment notes that the petitioner's reply to the notice under Section 142(1) was found to be lacking in specific details, without enclosed documents, and the impugned order at Annexure-T categorically indicated that it could not be considered. The revenue did not explicitly argue against the petitioner's plea for a fresh opportunity, but the court observed that no fault could be found with the respondents in passing the order based on the insufficient reply.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 142,Section 148A,Section 147,Section 156

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28215 WP No. 13443 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.13443 OF 2025 (T-IT)

BETWEEN:

1.

MR. HANUMANTHAPPA S/O HUCHAPPA AGE 49 YEARS RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.134-1 KODAKANI VILLAGE, SORABA POST, SORABA TALUK, SHIMOGA - 577 429. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANIRUDHA R. NAYAK, ADVOCATE) AND:

1.

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 AND TPS, NO.75, 100FT. ROAD, GOPAL GOWDA EXTENSION, SHIVAMOGA-577 201.

2.

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C R BUILDINGS, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DILIP, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28215 WP No. 13443 of 2025

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 30.03.2022 BEARING NO.ITBA/AST/F/148A/2021-22/1042143445 (1) (ANNEXURE-B) PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 148A OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16, ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:- "The Petitioner, therefore, prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction: (a) Quashing the order dated 30.03.2022 bearing No.ITBA/AST/F/148A/2021-22/1042143445 (1) (Annexure B) passed by the 1st Respondent under Section 148A of the Act for the assessment year 2015-16; (b) Quashing the order dated 25.03.2023 bearing No.ITBA/AST/F/148A/2022-23/1051280631 (1) (Annexure S) passed by the 1st Respondent under Section 148A of the Act for the assessment year 2016-17; (c) Quashing the order dated 22.03.2024 bearing No. ITBA/AST/S/147/2022-23/1051124812

- 3 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28215 WP No. 13443 of 2025

(1) (Annexure Q) passed by the 1st Respondent under Section 147 of the Act for the assessment year 2015-16; (d) Quashing the demand notice dated 22.03.2023 bearing No.ITBA/AST/S/156/2022-23/105112 5058(1) issued by the 1st Respondent (Annexure R) to the Petitioner under Section 156 of the Act for the assessment year 2015- 16; and (e) Quashing the assessment order bearing ITBA/AST/S/147/2023-24/1061275153(1) dated 21.02.2024 u/s 147 of the ITA in Annexure T for the AY 2016-2017; (f) Quashing the Demand notice bearing ITBA/AST/S/156/2023-24/1061275312(1) dated 21.02.2024 u/s 156 in Annexure U. (g) pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interests of justice and equity." 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner has replied to the notice under sub-section (1) of Section 142 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). The said reply has not been considered before the impugned orders are passed. 3. A perusal of the reply to the notice under sub-section (1) of Section 142 of the Act indicates that there is no specific reply, no details have been furnished, nor

- 4 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28215 WP No. 13443 of 2025

any documents are enclosed and it is done in the background that in the impugned order at Annexure-T, it has been categorically indicated that the same could not be considered. 4. Though no fault could be found with the respondents in passing the said order, I am of the considered opinion that one more opportunity would have to be given to the petitioner to now furnish all the details along with a detailed reply, so that orders could be passed on merits, if the petitioner is so entitled to claim the benefit of those documents by putting the petitioner to terms. 5. In that view of the matter, I pass the following:- ORDER i). Writ petition is allowed. ii). The impugned order dated 30.03.2022 bearing No.ITBA /AST /F/148A/ 2021- 22/1042143445(1) at Annexure-B, impugned

- 5 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28215 WP No. 13443 of 2025

order dated 22.03.2024 bearing No.ITBA/AST/S/147/2022-23/1051124812(1) at Annexure-Q, impugned demand notice dated 22.03.2023 bearing No.ITBA/AST/S/156/2022- 23/1051125058(1) at Annexure-R, impugned order dated 25.03.2023 bearing No.ITBA/AST/F/148A/2022-23/1051280631(1) at Annexure-S, impugned order dated 21.02.2024 bearing No.ITBA/AST/S/147/2023- 24/1061275153(1) at Annexure-T, impugned demand notice dated 21.02.2024 bearing No.ITBA/AST/S/156/2023-24/1061275312(1) at Annexure-U are quashed. iii). The matter is remitted to respondent No.1 for fresh consideration. iv). The petitioner shall submit a detailed reply along with all the documents that the petitioner wishes to rely upon, without

- 6 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28215 WP No. 13443 of 2025

requirement of any further notice, on 31.07.2025 at 2.30 p.m.

v). Respondent No. 1 shall consider the same and pass necessary orders. vi). Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.

SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

VMB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

More judgments on Section 142

All 279 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →