VIKRAM KAUP vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

PDF · subscribers
WP/31681/2025HC KarnatakaKAHC01068121202523 October 2025Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR6 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the petition. It noted that it was an undisputed fact that the petitioner had not submitted a reply to the Section 201 notice. However, in view of the petitioner's specific assertion that his inability to submit a reply was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances, and sufficient cause, and his request for one more opportunity, the Court deemed it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned orders. The Court reasoned that granting an opportunity to the petitioner to submit his reply would be in the interest of justice and equity. The matter was remitted back to Respondent No. 1 for reconsideration afresh from the stage of submitting the petitioner's reply to the Section 201 notice. Liberty was reserved for the petitioner to submit additional pleadings and documents, which the respondent was directed to consider before proceeding in accordance with law.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Vikram Kaup, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging an order passed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO), TDS, Respondent No. 1, under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated July 28, 2022, for Assessment Year 2019-20. The petitioner also challenged a penalty order dated November 28, 2022, passed under Section 271H of the Act by the same respondent for the same assessment year. The petitioner's primary contention was that he did not receive the notice issued under Section 201 of the IT Act, was unaware of it, and therefore could not submit a reply or response with supporting documents. He claimed this omission was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances, and sufficient cause, and sought an opportunity to do so.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned orders passed under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) and the penalty order under Section 271H of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are liable to be quashed on the ground that the petitioner did not receive the notice under Section 201 and consequently could not submit a reply. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that he did not receive the notice under Section 201 of the IT Act and was unaware of it, preventing him from submitting a reply and documents. He claimed this was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances, and sufficient cause, and requested one more opportunity to respond. The petitioner sought to set aside the impugned orders and notices to allow him to submit his reply. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there is no merit in the petition and that it is liable to be dismissed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 201,Section 201(1),Section 201(1A),Section 271H

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42010 WP No. 31681 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 31681 OF 2025 (T-IT) BETWEEN: 1. VIKRAM KAUP AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, S/O POOVA POOJARY, D.NO.135-4, POORNIMA ENTERPRISES, PADU VILLAGE, KAPU ABHIMAN, UDUPI - 574 105. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVI SHANKAR S.V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, TDS WARD, MANGALORE - 575 001. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 AND TPS, UDUPI - 576 103. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS, THE OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS, PATTO CENTRE, PANAJI, GOA - 403 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ARAVIND V. CHAVAN, ADVOCATE)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42010 WP No. 31681 of 2025 CERTIORARI OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED U/S 201(1) AND 201(1A) BEARING 28/07/2022 DATED DIN ITBA/COM/F/17/2022-23/1044222425(1) PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2019-20 HEREIN MARKED AS ANNEXURE - A.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs: "Wherefore it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to: 1) Issue a writ of Certiorari or direction in the nature of a writ of certiorari quashing the order passed U/s 201(1) & 201(1A) dated 28/07/2022 bearing DIN: ITBA/COM/F/17/2022-23/1044222425(1) passed by the Respondent No.1 for the assessment year 2019-20 herein marked as Annexure A. ii) Issue a writ of Certiorari or direction in the nature of a writ of certiorari quashing the penalty order dated 28/11/2022 passed u/s 271H of the Act Vide DIN the ITBA/COM/F/17/2022-23/1047667850(1) by Respondent No.1 for the assessment year 2019-20 herein marked as Annexure A1. iii) And pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity."

- 3 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42010 WP No. 31681 of 2025 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents 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 the respondents under Section 201 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘IT Act’), was not received by 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 201 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

- 4 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42010 WP No. 31681 of 2025 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 201 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 201 notice was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause and if one more opportunity is granted, petitioner would submit reply along with documents, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned orders at Annexure – A dated 28.07.2022, passed under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act and the order at Annexure- A1 dated 28.11.2022 passed under section 271H of the

- 5 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42010 WP No. 31681 of 2025 Income Tax 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 201 notice and to proceed further in accordance with law. 6. In the result, pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is hereby allowed. ii) Impugned notices / orders at Annexures A and A1 are hereby set aside. iii) Matter is remitted back to respondent No.1 for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law from the stage of submitting of reply to the Show Cause Notice under Section 201 of the IT Act at Annexure – C1 dated 29.04.2022. iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit additional pleadings, documents, etc., to

- 6 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42010 WP No. 31681 of 2025 the respondent, who shall consider the same and proceed further in accordance with law. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE Bsv CT-SG List No.: 2 Sl No.: 20

More judgments on Section 201

All 1,566 judgments and leading authorities on Section 201 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →