SUBASHREE RAMACHANDRAN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP/23445/2026HC KarnatakaKAHC01051324202613 August 2026Bench: B M SHYAM PRASAD6 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the petition in part. It held that the response time permitted to the petitioner for the Notice under Section 142(1) of the IT Act fell short of the minimum fifteen-day requirement stipulated in the SOP dated 03.08.2022 by one day. Consequently, the Court found that interference was necessary. The impugned Assessment Order, Computation Sheet, Notice of Demand, Penalty Notices, Draft Order, and the Notice under Section 143(2) were quashed. The petitioner was granted liberty to file a response to the Notice dated 11.09.2025 under Section 142(1) of the IT Act. All contentions were left open to be urged in the restored proceedings. The ratio decidendi is that a procedural violation of a mandatory SOP, even by a narrow margin, warrants setting aside the subsequent orders and notices, with liberty to the assessee to comply with the procedural requirements.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Subhashree Ramachandran, represented by her GPA holder, filed a writ petition challenging various orders and notices issued by the Income Tax Department for Assessment Year 2024-25. These included an Assessment Order dated 22.03.2026 under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(3), a Computation Sheet, a Notice of Demand under Section 156, Penalty Notices under Section 274 read with Section 272A(1)(d) and Section 271AAC(1), a Draft Order under Section 144C(1), and a Notice under Section 143(2). The petitioner's primary contention was that a Notice under Section 142(1) dated 11.09.2025, which allowed a response by 25.09.2025, violated the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) of 03.08.2022, which mandates a minimum of fifteen days for response. The revenue was represented by its counsel.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Notice dated 11.09.2025 issued under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which provided a response time of less than fifteen days, is in violation of the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) dated 03.08.2022. Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the Notice under Section 142(1) dated 11.09.2025, which allowed the petitioner only until 25.09.2025 to respond, was contrary to the SOP issued on 03.08.2022. The SOP clearly states that the response time for a Notice under Section 142(1) should be a minimum of fifteen days. The petitioner contended that the permitted response time fell short of this requirement by one day. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record specific contentions from the revenue regarding the validity of the Section 142(1) notice or the SOP.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144C(3),Section 156,Section 274,Section 272A(1)(d),Section 271AAC(1),Section 144C(1),Section 143(2),Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 23445 OF 2026 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

SUBASHREE RAMACHANDRAN D/O RAMACHANDRAN RAMANUJAM AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY HER GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER I SRINATH ADIGA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS NO.171, SUBRAHMANYA 9TH MAIN, BTM 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE-560 076 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRANAY SHARMA Y, ADVOCATE FOR; SRI. MOHAMMED MONISH SOWKAR., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, WARD-2(1), BANGALORE, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FT. ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU 560095

2.

THE ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE,

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HC-KAR MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ROOM NO 401, 2ND FLOOR, E-RAMP, JAWARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, DELHI-110 003 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. E. I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE A/W; SRI. NIRMAL MATHEW, ADVOCATE)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT OF CERTIORARI ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 22.03.2026 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S 144C (3) OF THE ACT, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2024-25 BY R1 BEARING DIN NO. ITBA/AST/S /143 (3)/2025-26/1087720414(1), HEREIN MARKED AS ANNEXURE - A1. B) QUASHING COMPUTATION SHEET DATED 22.03.2026 ISSUED BY R1 BEARING DIN AND DOCUMENT NO.ITBA/AST/S/324/2025-26/1087720437 (1) HEREIN MARKED AS ANNEXURE - A2. C) QUASHING NOTICE OF DEMAND ISSUED UNDER SECTION 156 OF THE ACT DATED 22.03.2026 BEARING DIN AND NOTICE NO. ITBA/AST/S/156/2025-26/1087720433(1) HEREIN MARKED AS ANNX-A3. D) QUASHING PENALTY NOTICE DATED 09.04.2026 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 274 R.W.S 272A(1)(D) OF THE ACT BEARING DIN AND NOTICE NO. ITBA / PNL / S / 272A(1)(D) /2026-27 /1088379035(1) HEREIN MARKED AS ANNEXURE - A4. E) QUASHING PENALTY NOTICE DATED 09.04.2026 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 274 R.W.S 271AAC (1) OF THE ACT BEARING DIN AND NOTICE NO.ITBA/PNL/271AAC (1)/2026-27/ 1088378988 (1) HEREIN MARKED AS ANNEXURE - A5. F) QUASHING DRAFT ORDER UNDER SECTION 144C (1) OF THE ACT DATED 04.02.2026 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2024-25 BY R1 BEARING DIN NO. ITBA/AST /F / 144C/2025-26/1085589584(1) HEREIN MARKED AS ANNX-B. G) QUASHING NOTICE DATED 24.06.2025 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2024-25 BY R2 BEARING DIN NO. ITBA/AST/S/143(2)/2025-26/1077596424(1) HEREIN MARKED AS ANNEXURE -C.

HC-KAR 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's grievance is with the Assessment Order dated 22.03.2026 under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short, 'the IT Act']. The impugned Assessment Order is relevant for the assessment year 2024-25. The petitioner has also called in question the subsequent Computation, Demand, Penalty Notices and Draft Order, and the details of the impugned orders/ notices are as follows.

Sl.No Particulars Income Tax Act, 1961 Date Annexure 1. Assessment Order 143(3) r.w.s 144C(3) 22.03.2026 A1 2. Computation Sheet -- 22.03.2026 A2 3. Notice 156 22.03.2026 A3 4. Penalty Notice 274 r.w.s 272A(1)(d) 09.04.2026 A4 5. Penalty Notice 274 r.w.s. 271AAC(1) 09.04.2026 A5 HC-KAR

6.

Draft Order 144C(1) 04.02.2026 B 7 Notice 143(2) 24.06.2025 C

2 Mr. Pranay Sharma Y, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. E. I. Sanmathi and Mr. Nirmal Mathew, the learned Senior Standing counsel/Standing counsel for the respondents, are heard for disposal of the petition in the light of the short ground that is presented for consideration while stating that the petitioner has inadvertently filed an appeal against a Draft Assessment Order and that the petitioner, subject to the outcome in this writ petition, will withdraw such appeal. Mr. Pranay Sharma Y also submits that the appeal could be disposed of on its own because it is against a Draft Assessment Order.

3 On the short ground, Mr. Pranay Sharma Y submits that the petitioner is issued with Notice under Section 142(1) of the IT Act which is dated HC-KAR 11.09.2025 permitting the petitioner time till 25.09.2025 to respond but the Standard Operating Procedure [SOP] issued on 03.08.2022 clearly states that the response time for a Notice under Section 142(1) of the IT Act should be a minimum of fifteen days.

4 It cannot be disputed that the response time permitted to the petitioner falls short of this requirement by a day, and therefore, there must be interference restoring the proceedings with liberty to the petitioner to file response to the Notice under 142(1) of the IT Act leaving open all contentions to be urged in such restored proceedings. In the light of the afore, the following. ORDER [A] The petition is allowed in-part. [B] The impugned Assessment Order, the subsequent Computation and Demand as follows are quashed.

HC-KAR Particulars Income Tax Act, 1961 Date Annexure Assessment Order 143(3) r.w.s 144C(3) 22.03.2026 A1 Computation Sheet -- 22.03.2026 A2 Notice 156 22.03.2026 A3 Penalty Notice 274 r.w.s 272A(1)(d) 09.04.2026 A4 Penalty Notice 274 r.w.s. 271AAC(1) 09.04.2026 A5 Draft Order 144C(1) 04.02.2026 B Notice 143(2) 24.06.2025 C

[C] The petitioner is reserved with liberty to file response to the Notice dated 11.09.2025 under Section 142(1) of the IT Act as enabled consequent to this order.

Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

More judgments on Section 144C(3)

All 595 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144C(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →