GOVINDAN KOTHANDAPANI KAVIRASU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP/22402/2026HC KarnatakaKAHC01049106202628 July 2026Bench: B M SHYAM PRASAD6 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the petition in part. The Court found that the notice dated 23.03.2022 under Section 148A(b) of the IT Act afforded the petitioner only five days to respond, which is less than the mandatory minimum of seven days. The Revenue could not justify this short notice period. Consequently, the Court quashed the order dated 07.04.2022 under Section 148A(d), the notice dated 08.04.2022 under Section 148, the reassessment order dated 15.01.2024 under Sections 147, 144, and 144B, and the penalty orders dated 25.07.2024 under Sections 272A(1)(d) and 271AAC(1). The proceedings were restored to the first respondent, with liberty to the petitioner to file a response to the notice dated 23.03.2022. The petitioner was directed to appear before the first respondent on 22.09.2026.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Govindan Kothandapani Kavirasu, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging several notices and orders issued by the Income Tax Department concerning Assessment Year 2018-19. The impugned actions include a notice dated 23.03.2022 under Section 148A(b), an order dated 07.04.2022 under Section 148A(d), a notice dated 08.04.2022 under Section 148, a reassessment order dated 15.01.2024 under Sections 147, 144, and 144B, and two penalty orders dated 25.07.2024 under Section 272A(1)(d) and Section 271AAC(1). The petitioner sought to quash these notices and orders.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 23.03.2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which afforded the petitioner only six days (excluding the notice date, five days) to respond, against the mandatory minimum seven days' notice period, is valid? The petitioner argued that the short notice period violates Section 148A(b) of the IT Act and relied on the Division Bench judgment in W.A.No.612/2026. The Revenue, represented by its Standing Counsel, could not dispute the short notice period or justify it with reasons.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A(b),Section 148A(d),Section 148,Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 272A(1)(d),Section 271AAC(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 22402 OF 2026 (T-IT) BETWEEN: GOVINDAN KOTHANDAPANI KAVIRASU S/O. G. KOTHANDAPANI, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, NO.44, 5TH CROSS, H.P.NAGAR, BEML NAGAR, K.G.F - 563 115, KOLAR DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. R. CHANDRASHEKAR., ADVOCATE) AND:

1.

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, NEW EXTENSION KOLAR-563 101.

2.

ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI-110001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI , ADVOCATE A/W ; SRI. M. DILIP, ADVOCATE)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO THE

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HC-KAR PETITIONER HUMBLY PRAYS THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE NOTICE DATED 23.03.2022 ISSUED U/S 148A(B) OF THE ACT (ANNEXURE-A) DIN (ITBA /AST /F/148A(SCN) /2021-22/1041353524(1)) ISSUED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19 BY R1. II) THE ORDER DATED 07.04.2022 MADE U/S 148A(D) OF THE ACT, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19 (ANNEXURE-B) DIN (ITBA/AST/F/148A/2022-23/ 1042643320(1)) PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. III) QUASHING THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S.148 OF THE ACT DATED 08.04.2022 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19 (ANNEXURE-C) DIN (ITBA/AST/S/148_1/2022- 23/1042653398(1)) ISSUED BY THE R1. IV) QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 15.01.2024 MADE U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S 144B OF THE ACT, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-(ITBA/AST/S/147/2023-19 (ANNEXURE-D) DIN 24/1059716830(1)) PASSED BY THE R2. V) QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 25.07.2024 MADE U/S 272A(1)(D) OF THE ACT, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19 (ANNEXURE-E) DIN (ITBA/ PNL/F/272A(1)(D)/2024-25/1067011240(1)) PASSED BY THE R2. VI) QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 25.07.2024 MADE U/S 271AAC(1) OF THE ACT, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19 (ANNEXURE-E1) DIN (ITBA /PNL/F/271AAC(1)/2024-25/1067013632(1)) PASSED BY THE R2. B. THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED HC-KAR TO ISSUE SUCH OTHER RELIEF OR RELIEFS AS THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT, IN THE PETITIONERS CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is aggrieved by the commencement of reassessment proceedings and the conclusion thereof. The petitioner has called in question the Notice dated 23.03.2022 [Annexure-A] under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short, 'the IT Act'], the subsequent Order dated 07.04.2022 [Annexure -B] under Section 148A(d) of the IT Act and the resulting further proceedings, the details of which are as follows.

HC-KAR Sl. No .

Notices/ Orders

Date Provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961

Annexures 1 Notice 23.03.2022 148A(b) A 2 Order 07.04.2022 148A(d) B 3 Notice 08.04.2022 148 C 4 Reassessment Order 15.01.2024 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B D 5 Penalty Order 25.07.2024 272A(1)(d) E 6 Penalty Order 25.07.2024 271AAC(1) E1

2.

Mr. R. Chandrasekhar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner invokes this Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India because the petitioner, as against the required minimum seven days’ notice period under Section 148A(b) of the IT Act, is afforded only six days and in elaboration, the learned counsel submits that the notice under Section 148A(b) of the IT Act is dated 23.03.2022 and the petitioner is afforded opportunity only till 29.03.2022 and that if the date of notice is excluded, there would only be five days. The learned counsel, to bolster the submissions, relies upon the judgment of the HC-KAR Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.612/2026 decided on 19.05.2026.

3.

Mr. M. Dilip, the learned Standing counsel for the Revenue who is called upon to accept notice for the respondents, is heard on whether this Court must interfere with the impugned notice and the further proceedings on this short ground. The learned Standing counsel cannot dispute that the petitioner, as against a minimum period of seven days’ notice, is allowed only five days and without justifying the same with reasons. As such, this Court is persuaded to interfere on the following terms: ORDER [A] The petition is allowed in-part, and the following Orders and Notices are quashed restoring the proceedings to the first respondent reserving liberty to the petitioner to file response to the Notice dated HC-KAR 23.03.2022 under Section 148A (b) of the IT Act along with documents. [B] The details of the quashed notices/orders are as follows:

Sl. No .

Notices/ Orders

Date Provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961

Annexures 1 Order 07.04.2022 148A(d) B 2 Notice 08.04.2022 148 C 3 Reassessment Order 15.01.2024 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B D 4 Penalty Order 25.07.2024 272A(1)(d) E 5 Penalty Order 25.07.2024 271AAC(1) E1

[C] The petitioner shall appear before the first respondent on 22.09.2026 without further notice.

Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

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 →