SRI H S GIRISH GUPTA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP/27273/2023HC KarnatakaKAHC01064051202306 November 2025Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed the petition. The Court observed that a perusal of the impugned order indicated that the respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax) had not considered the reply submitted by the petitioner, despite the petitioner having filed it. The impugned order incorrectly stated that no such reply was filed, which was contrary to the material on record. Under these circumstances, the Court deemed it appropriate to provide the petitioner with another opportunity to file an additional reply and to have the matter reconsidered. The Court quashed the impugned sanction order dated March 31, 2023, and remitted the matter back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) for fresh consideration in accordance with the law. Liberty was granted to the petitioner to submit pleadings and documents, which the respondent was directed to consider.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sri H. S. Girish Gupta, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging a sanction order dated March 31, 2023, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) under Section 279(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioner contended that he was not a Director or Principal Officer of M/s. Mantri Habitats Pvt. Ltd., and therefore, no prosecution proceedings could be initiated against him. The petitioner had submitted replies to notices issued by the respondent authorities on October 13, 2017, and March 31, 2018, and further correspondence on August 6, 2018, and January 31, 2019. Despite these submissions, the sanction order was passed. The respondent argued that the petition lacked merit.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the sanction order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) under Section 279(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is liable to be quashed on the grounds that the petitioner was not a Director or Principal Officer of the concerned company and that the respondent failed to consider the petitioner's reply. (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 279(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the sanction order was bad in law as he was neither a Director nor a Principal Officer of M/s. Mantri Habitats Pvt. Ltd., making any prosecution against him untenable. He also contended that the respondent failed to consider his detailed replies and submissions before passing the impugned order. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel for the respondent submitted 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 279(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45083 WP No. 27273 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 27273 OF 2023 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

SRI H. S. GIRISH GUPTA, SON OF SRI LACHAIAH SETTY SATYANARAYANA GUPTA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, NO. 18, 42ND CROSS ROAD, 8TH BLOCK, JAYANAGARA, BSK 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE – 560 070 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANNAMALAI S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) 4TH FLOOR, HMT BHAVAN, NO. 59, BELLARY ROAD BANGALORE – 560 032

THE ASSISTANT/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE -2 (1), HMT BHAVAN, NO. 59, BELLARY ROAD BANGALORE – 560 032 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE SANCTION ORDER UNDER SEC. 279(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 BEARING NO. 45-M-48/2022-23 DIN NO. 18/KAR/31032023/432951 DTD 31/03/2023 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 ENCLOSED AND REFERRED AS ANNEXURE-A IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER CONCERNED.

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

- 2 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45083 WP No. 27273 of 2023

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 or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the sanction order under section 279(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 bearing no.45-M-48/2022-23 DIN No.18/KAR/31032023/432951 dated 31.03.2023 passed by the respondent No.1 enclosed and referred as Annexure-A in respect of the petitioner concerned. b) pass any order/s as deems fit to this Hon’ble court in the interest of justice.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that on 13.10.2017, respondent No.1 issued notice to the petitioner followed by show-cause notice dated 31.03.2018 for the purpose of initiating proceedings under Section 279 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the I.T. Act”), the petitioner submitted reply dated 06.08.2018 to respondent No.1 as well as letter dated 31.01.2019 to respondent No.1, specifically contending that the petitioner was

- 3 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45083 WP No. 27273 of 2023

not a Director of the Company, M/s. Mantri Habitats Pvt. Ltd., and as such, the question of petitioner being prosecuted would not arise. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the petitioner is not a Director or Principal Officer of the Company and the petitioner had submitted a reply, respondent No.1 has proceeded to pass the impugned sanction order under Section 279(1) of the I.T. Act, dated 31.03.2023, which is assailed in the present petition. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner 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 having referred to the notice issued by respondent No.1, respondent No.1 has not considered the reply submitted by the petitioner and has come to the conclusion that no such reply was filed by the petitioner, which is contrary to the material on record. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that in order to provide one more opportunity and to file additional reply, by adopting a justice oriented approach, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of the petition by setting aside the impugned

- 4 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45083 WP No. 27273 of 2023

order and by remitting the matter back to respondent No.1 for reconsideration afresh, in accordance with law. 6. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned sanction order at Annexure-A dated 31.03.2023 passed by respondent No.1, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, is hereby quashed. (iii) The matter is remitted back to respondent No.1 for reconsideration of the matter afresh, in accordance with law. (iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit pleadings, documents, additional documents etc., before respondent No.1, who shall consider the same, provide sufficient opportunity and proceed further, in accordance with law. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

BMC: List No.: 2 Sl No.: 68

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →