RAGHUPATHI JAGADISH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP/20061/2025HC KarnatakaKAHC01041936202517 October 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 148A(b) notice. However, considering the petitioner's assertion that this omission was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances, and sufficient cause (loss of email access), and that granting one more opportunity would allow the petitioner to submit the required reply and documents, the Court deemed it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned orders. The matter was remitted back to the respondent No. 1 (ITO) for reconsideration afresh from the stage of submitting the petitioner's reply to the Section 148A(b) notice. Liberty was granted to the petitioner to submit additional pleadings and documents, which the respondent was directed to consider before proceeding further in accordance with law. The impugned order at Annexure-D dated 13.11.2024 and the impugned demand at Annexure-B dated 22.02.2024 were set aside.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Raghupathi Jagadish, proprietor of M/s. United Service Station, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging orders passed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) and the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The assessment year in question is 2020-21. The petitioner sought to quash orders passed under Section 148A(d) and subsequent demands under Section 147 read with Section 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The core of the petitioner's grievance was that a notice issued under Section 148A(b) dated 10.01.2024 was not received by him due to loss of access to his email account, preventing him from filing a reply or submitting documents. Consequently, all further notices and proceedings went unnoticed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned orders passed under Section 148A(d) and subsequent proceedings are liable to be quashed as perverse, illegal, and unsustainable in law, on the ground that the petitioner did not receive the notice under Section 148A(b) and therefore could not file a reply due to bonafide reasons and sufficient cause? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 148A(b), Section 147, Section 144, and Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notice under Section 148A(b) dated 10.01.2024 was not received because the petitioner lost access to his email account. This inability to respond was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances, and sufficient cause. The petitioner sought an opportunity to submit a reply and documents by setting aside the impugned orders and notices. Revenue's Contention: The revenue submitted that there is no merit in the petition and that it is liable to be dismissed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148A(b),Section 148A(d),Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41996 WP No. 20061 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 20061 OF 2025 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

RAGHUPATHI JAGADISH PROP M/S. UNITED SERVICE STATION AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS SON OF SRI G. RAGHUPATHI UNITED SERVICE STATION MAIN ROAD, BADA S.O BADA DAVANGARE – 577 514, PAN NO. AFXPJ8497A PHONE NO-9448975129 MAIL ID- jaggishyla99gmail.com …PETITIONER (BY SMT. PRATIBHA R., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT,

WARD-1, PARK VIEW BUILDING,

1ST FLOOR, 4TH MAIN, PJ EXTENSION,

DAVANGERE – 577 001

2.

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE

NORTH BLOCK DELHI – 110 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. DILIP, ADVOCATE)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE DIGITALLY SIGNED IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO. 1 IN ITBA/AST/F/148A/1061314292(1) DATED 22.02.2024 AY-2020-21 ANNEXURE-B AS BEING PERVERSE, ILLEGAL AND

Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka

- 2 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41996 WP No. 20061 of 2025

UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW, THERE BY DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO CANCEL THE ORDER PASSED U/S 148A(D) OF THE ACT AND ETC.,

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 in the nature of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the digitally signed impugned orders passed by Respondent No.1 in ITBA/AST/F/148A/1061314292(1) dated 22.02.2024 AY-2020-21 Annexure-B as being perverse, illegal and unsustainable in law, there by directing Respondent No.1 to cancel the order passed u/s 148A(d) of the Act. (b) Issue a writ in the nature of Prohibition/ Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction the operation of the digitally signed impugned orders passed by Respondent No.2 ITBA/AST/S/147/2024- 25/1070313668(1) ΑΥ- 2020-21 dt: 13.11.2024 Annexure-D and direct the Respondents to cancel the addition made in the hands of the Petitioner u/s 147 r w s 144 r w s 144B of the Act. (c) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or

- 3 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41996 WP No. 20061 of 2025

direction quashing the digitally signed impugned demand issued by Respondent No.1 in ITBA/AST/F/148A/1061314292(1) Dt: 22.02.2024 AY 2020-21 Annexure-B. (d) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the digitally signed impugned demand issued by Respondent No.2 in ITBA/AST/S/147/2024-25/1070313668(1) AY- 2020- 21, dt: 13.11.2024 (Annexure-D) (e) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the digitally signed impugned demand issued by Respondent No.1 in ITBA/AST/F/148A/1061314292(1) Dt 22.02.2024 AY- 2020-21 Annexure-B. (f) Issue any other writ, order or direction in favour of the Petitioner, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (g) Pass such other order, direction or writ as this Hon'ble Court Deems fit, and (h) Direct the Respondents to award the costs of this writ petition.”

2.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

- 4 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41996 WP No. 20061 of 2025

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 148A(B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘IT Act’) dated 10.01.2024 was not received by petitioner and hence, could not file reply/ documents to the same since petitioner lost access to the email account and was unaware of the notice 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 Section 148A(b) 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 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41996 WP No. 20061 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 Section 148A(b) 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 148A(b) 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 – D dated 13.11.2024 passed by respondent No.2 and subsequent notice / orders, etc., and remit the matter back to respondent No.2 for reconsideration afresh from the stage of submitting of reply by the petitioner to 148A(b) notice and to proceed further in accordance with law. 6. In the result, pass the following: ORDER

(i) The petition is hereby allowed.

(ii) The impugned order at Annexure-D dated 13.11.2024 and the impugned demand at Annexure-B dated 22.02.2024 passed/issued by respondent No.1 are hereby set aside.

- 6 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41996 WP No. 20061 of 2025

(iii) 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 148A(b) of the IT Act dated 10.01.2024.

(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

BMC List No.: 2 Sl No.: 21

More judgments on Section 148A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →