BELLANDUR MUNIGURAPPA REDDY RAMAIAHREDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP/18271/2024HC KarnatakaKAHC01037584202406 August 2024Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR4 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated March 29, 2024, was illegal and vitiated because it failed to provide the mandatory minimum period of seven clear days (excluding public holidays) for the assessee to respond. The Court relied on its previous decision in Smt. Lakshmi Vs. Income Tax Officer and Others. Consequently, the impugned notice under Section 148A(b), the order under Section 148A(d), and the subsequent notice under Section 148, all pertaining to the assessment year 2020-21, were quashed. The Court reserved liberty for the respondents to take recourse to remedies available in law, subject to just exceptions and defenses available to the petitioner. The ratio decidendi is that non-compliance with the mandatory notice period under Section 148A(b) renders the subsequent proceedings illegal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Bellandur Munigurappa Reddy Ramaiahreddy, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging notices and an order issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(2)(3), Bangalore. The assessment year in question is 2020-21. The petitioner sought to quash a notice under Section 148A(b) dated March 29, 2024, an order under Section 148A(d) dated April 8, 2024, and a notice under Section 148 dated April 8, 2024, all issued by the respondent Income Tax Officer. The petition was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated March 29, 2024, is illegal and liable to be quashed for failing to provide the minimum statutory period of seven clear days for the assessee to respond. The petitioner contended that the notice under Section 148A(b) did not stipulate the minimum period of seven clear days (excluding public holidays) as contemplated under the Act. The petitioner relied on the High Court's own decision in Smt. Lakshmi Vs. Income Tax Officer and Others - W.P.No.22874/2023 dated 06.11.2023. The revenue did not record any specific arguments in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

NC: 2024:KHC:31160 WP No. 18271 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 18271 OF 2024 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

BELLANDUR MUNIGURAPPA REDDY RAMAIAHREDDY S/O MUNIGURAPPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, NO. 72/2, MUNI REDDY GARDENS, BEHIND RASAGANGA PARTY HALL, BELLANDUR, BANGALORE – 560 103. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K R PRADEEP.,ADVOCATE) AND:

1.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(2)(3), BANGALORE, 3RD FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE - 560 095.

2.

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE -2, 5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE - 560 095. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SUSHAL TIWARI, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PARYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE UNDER SEC 148A(b) OF THE ACT DTD 29.03.2024 BEARING DIN NO. ITBA/AST/F/148A(SCN)/2023-24/1063623322(1) (ANNEXURE-A) ISSUED BY THE R-1 FOR THE AY 2020-21 AND QUASH THE ORDER UNDER SEC 148A(d) OF THE ACT DTD 08.04.2024 BEARING DIN NO. ITBA/AST/F/148A/2024-

Digitally signed by LEELAVATHI S R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

NC: 2024:KHC:31160 WP No. 18271 of 2024

25/1063970834(1) (ANNEXURE-B) ISSUED BY THE R-1 FOR THE AY 2020-21 AND ETC.

THIS WRIT 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, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “i) Quashing the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act dated 29.03.2024 bearing DIN No.ITBA/AST/F/148A(SCN)/ 2023-24/1063623322(1) (Annexure-A) issued by the first Respondent for the assessment year 2020-21; ii) Quashing the order under section 148A(d) of the Act dated 08.04.2024 bearing DIN No.ITBA/AST/F/148A/2024- 25/1063970834(1) (Annexure-B) issued by the first Respondent for the assessment year 2020-21; iii) Quashing the notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 08.04.2024 bearing DIN No.ITBA/AST/S/148_1/2024- 25/1063971580(1) (Annexure-C) issued by the first Respondent for the assessment year 2020-21.”

2.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

3.

A perusal of the material on record including the impugned notice at Annexure-A dated 29.03.2024 will indicate that the same does not stipulate the minimum period of seven clear

- 3 -

NC: 2024:KHC:31160 WP No. 18271 of 2024

days (excluding public holidays) as contemplated under Section 148-A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1960 (for short “the I.T. Act”) and as held by this Court in the case of Smt. Lakshmi Vs. Income Tax Officer and Others - W.P.No.22874/2023 dated 06.11.2023.

4.

Under these circumstances, since the impugned notice at Annexure-A dated 29.03.2024 for the Assessment Year 2020- 21, under Section 148-A(b) of the I.T. Act is illegal and vitiated on account of falling short of the prescribed requirement of 7 clear days (excluding public holidays), the impugned notice as well as all further proceedings thereto including the notice at Annexure-C dated 08.04.2024 deserve to be quashed by reserving liberty in favour of the respondents to take recourse to such remedies as available in law.

5.

In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i) The Writ Petition is allowed. ii) The impugned notice dated 29.03.2024 at Annexure-A, the impugned order dated 08.04.2024 at Annexure-B and the impugned notice dated 08.04.2024 at Annexure-C issued by respondent No.1 are hereby quashed.

- 4 -

NC: 2024:KHC:31160 WP No. 18271 of 2024

iii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the respondents to take recourse to such remedies as available in law, subject to all just exceptions and defences available to the petitioner.

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

BMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20

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 →