SMT. TEJAL MIAN PARIKH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP/27857/2023HC KarnatakaKAHC01065049202328 October 2025Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petition had become infructuous. Placing this submission on record, the Court ordered that the petition be dismissed as having become infructuous. No decision was made on the merits of the penalty order or the legality of the proceedings that led to it. The High Court did not delve into the substantive grounds for challenging the penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The operative direction was solely to dismiss the writ petition due to its infructuous nature.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Smt. Tejal Mian Parikh, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging an ex-parte penalty order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Belagavi. The penalty was levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2014-15. The penalty order, dated March 25, 2022, bore the DIN ITBA/PNL/F/271/(1)(c)/2021.22/1041497751(1). The writ petition sought to quash this penalty order. The matter came up for preliminary hearing before the High Court.

What were the issues?

The primary issue before the High Court was whether the ex-parte penalty order dated March 25, 2022, passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Year 2014-15, should be quashed. The petitioner sought this relief. The respondent, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, was represented. The judgment does not record specific arguments from either side regarding the merits of the penalty order itself. Instead, the petitioner's counsel made a submission regarding the current status of the petition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43165 WP No. 27857 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 27857 OF 2023 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

SMT. TEJAL MIAN PARIKH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 1081/31, 1ST FLOOR, GOLDEN BLOSSOM, 18TH ‘A’ MAIN, 5TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 010. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. RUPA RON, ADVOCATE) AND:

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, SHARADHA BUILDING, SARAF COLONY, KHANAPUR ROAD, TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI – 590 006. …RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. M. DILIP, ADVOCATE)

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER OF EX- PARTY PENALTY MADE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014.15 ON 25.03.2022 U/S 271(1)(c) OF THE ACT VIDE DIN ITBA/PNL/F/271/(1)(c)/2021.22/1041497751(1) (ANNX-F).

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

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

- 2 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43165 WP No. 27857 of 2023

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL ORDER

In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:-

“ (a) To issue an order of writ of certiorari or in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the order of writ of certiorari or in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the order of ex-party Penalty made for the assessment year 2014-15 on 25.03.2022 u/s. 271(1) (c) of the Act vide DIN ITBA/PNL/F/271(1) (C)/2021-22/1041497751(1) (Annexure- F)

(b) To issue such writ/writs or orders this Hon’ble Court deem it fit in the Petitioner’s case in the interest of justice.”

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition may be dismissed as it has become infructuous.

3.

The said submission is placed on record. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as having become infructuous.

Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

Srl.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →