RAHAMAN KHAN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP/20929/2025HC KarnatakaKAHC01045004202517 October 2025Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR6 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the petition. It noted that it was undisputed that the petitioner had not submitted a reply to the notice under Section 148A(b). However, accepting the petitioner's assertion that this omission was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances, and sufficient cause, and that he would submit a reply if given another opportunity, the Court deemed it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned orders. The matter was remitted back to Respondent No.1 for reconsideration from the stage of submitting the petitioner's reply to the Section 148A(b) notice. The petitioner was granted liberty to submit additional pleadings and documents, which the respondent was directed to consider before proceeding further in accordance with law. The impugned orders at Annexures-B and D were set aside.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rahaman Khan, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging an order dated 31.03.2023 passed by the Income Tax Officer (Respondent No.1) under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2019-20. The petitioner also challenged a subsequent assessment order dated 26.02.2024 passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (Respondent No.2) for the same assessment year. The core of the petitioner's grievance was that he did not receive the notice issued by Respondent No.1 under Section 148A(b) and was therefore unable to submit a reply or response, which he claimed was due to bonafide reasons and sufficient cause.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is liable to be quashed as perverse, illegal, and unsustainable in law, considering the petitioner's claim of not receiving the notice under Section 148A(b) and consequently being unable to furnish a reply. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notice under Section 148A(b) was not received, and his inability 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 revenue contended that there was no merit in the petition and that it was liable to be dismissed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41994 WP No. 20929 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. 20929 OF 2025 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

RAHAMAN KHAN AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O ISMAIL KHAN, NO. A NO.A A R K FUEL STATION, ABDUL KALAM AZAD CIRCLE, B M EXTN. MYSORE – 570 015. PAN NO. ADUPK3399R MOB. NO. 9448064382 EMAIL ID: arkfuelstation@gmail.com …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S. PARTHASARATHI, AND SMT. JINITA CHATTERJEE, ADVOCATES)

AND:

1.

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT,

WARD 1(1) REAC MYSORE,

MYSORE – 570 008.

2.

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT,

NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE,

NORTH BLOCK,

DELHI – 110 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. THIRUMALESH, ADVOCATE)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE DIGITALLY SIGNED IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 31.03.2023 BEARING NO.ITBA/AST/F/148A/2022-23/1051724600(1) FOR AY. 2019-20 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 WHICH IS PRODUCED AT

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

- 2 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41994 WP No. 20929 of 2025

ANNEXURE-B, AS BEING PERVERSE, ILLEGAL AND UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW, THEREBY DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO.1 TO CANCEL THE ORDER PASSED U/S 148A(D) OF THE ACT AND ETC.,

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, 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 order dated 31.03.2023 bearing No.ITBA/AST/F/148a/2022- 23/1051724600(1) for AY: 2019-20 passed by Respondent No.1 which is produced at ANNEXURE-B, as being perverse, illegal and unsustainable in law, thereby directing Respondent No.1 to cancel the order passed u/s 148A(d) of the Act. (b) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the digitally signed impugned assessment order bearing No.ITBA/AST/S/147/2023-24/1061511476(1) dt: 26.02.2024 for AY: 2019-20 passed by Respondent No.2 which is produced at ANNEXURE-D, as being perverse, illegal and unsustainable in law, thereby directing Respondent No.1 to cancel the order passed u/s 147 r ws 144B r ws 144 of the Act.

- 3 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41994 WP No. 20929 of 2025

(c) Issue a writ in the nature of Prohibition/ Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, the operation of the digitally signed impugned assessment order bearing No.ITBA/AST/S/147/2023-24/1061511476(1) dt. 26.02.2024 for AY: 2019-20 passed by Respondent No.2 (ANNEXURE- D) and direct the Respondents to cancel the addition made in the hands of the Petitioner. (d) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the digitally signed assessment order bearing No.ITBA/AST/S/147/2023-24/1061511476(1) dt. 26.02.2024 for AY: 2019-20 passed by Respondent No.2 (ANNEXURE- D). (e) 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.”

2.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 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 notice issued by respondent No.1 under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘IT Act’), dated 25.02.2023 was not received by

- 4 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41994 WP No. 20929 of 2025

petitioner and he was not aware of the notice and consequently, petitioner could not submit its 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 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. 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

- 5 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41994 WP No. 20929 of 2025

more opportunity is granted, petitioner would submit reply along with documents, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order at Annexure –D dated 31.03.2023 passed under Section 148A(d) of the IT Act and subsequent notice / orders, etc., and remit the matter back to respondent No.1 for reconsideration afresh from the stage of submitting of reply by the petitioner to Section 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 orders at Annexure-B and D dated 31.03.2023 and 26.02.2024 respectively, passed by respondent No.2 is hereby set aside. (iii) The Matter is remitted back to respondent No.1 for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law from the stage of submitting of reply to the notice under Section 148A(b) of the IT Act at Annexure – A dated 25.02.2023

- 6 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41994 WP No. 20929 of 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

BMC List No.: 2 Sl No.: 52

More judgments on Section 148A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →