SYED ROSHAN ABBAS vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP/3302/2026HC KarnatakaKAHC01007494202611 February 2026Bench: S SUNIL DUTT YADAV4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Karnataka set aside the Assessment Order dated 29.02.2024 (Annexure-'D') and consequential orders at Annexures-C, E, and F. It also set aside the order at Annexure-'B' dated 01.04.2022. The Court reasoned that accepting the bonafideness of the lapse, attributed to the auditor, and considering that the proceedings had culminated in an ex-parte order, it would serve the ends of justice to re-open the proceedings. The matter was remitted to the stage of reply to the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act. The petitioner was directed to appear before the jurisdictional Assessing Officer on 02.03.2026 without further notice. The petitioner was also directed to pay costs of Rs. 10,000/- to the Karnataka Advocates Clerks Benevolent Trust. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Syed Roshan Abbas, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging an Assessment Order dated 29.02.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2018-2019. The petitioner contended that the entire assessment proceedings were ex-parte. The proceedings commenced with a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which pertained to cash deposits and withdrawals. The petitioner claimed to possess substantive material to explain these transactions, asserting they were related to business. The petitioner attributed the lapse in responding to the notice to their auditor failing to inform them about the show cause notice. The High Court noted that the proceedings had culminated in an ex-parte order and that the petitioner asserted having material to explain the notice.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ex-parte Assessment Order dated 29.02.2024 for AY 2018-2019, issued pursuant to a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, should be quashed and the proceedings re-opened, considering the petitioner's assertion of having substantive material to explain the cash deposits and withdrawals, and attributing the lapse to the auditor? (Question of mixed law and fact, turning on Section 148A(b) and principles of natural justice). Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the entire proceedings were ex-parte. They claimed to have substantive material to explain the cash deposits and withdrawals, which related to business transactions. The failure to respond was due to the auditor not informing the petitioner about the Show Cause Notice. Re-opening the proceedings would meet the ends of justice. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue. Sri E.I. Sanmathi, learned counsel, was directed to accept notice for the respondents.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8222 WP No. 3302 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 3302 OF 2026 (T-IT) BETWEEN: SYED ROSHAN ABBAS S/O. MIR MEHADI HUSSAIN, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, NO.26/1, ALFRED STREET, RICHMOND TOWN, BANGALORE- 560 025. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT FLAT NO.103, CHARU JASMINE APARTMENTS NO.3, LEONARD ROAD, RICHMOND TOWN, BANGALORE- 560 025. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. R CHANDRASHEKAR AND SRI. KASHINATH KAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAMA MURTHY R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2)(2), BMTC BLDG., 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE- 560 095. Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

- 2 -

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8222 WP No. 3302 of 2026 2. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI- 110 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. E.I.SANMATHI., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE NOTICE DATED 22.03.2022 ISSUED U/S 148A(B) OF THE ACT (ANNEXURE-A) ITBA/AST/F/148A(SCN)/2021- 22/1041329300(1) ISSUED FOR A.Y.2018-19 BY 1ST RESPONDENT., AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER

Sri E.I. Sanmathi, learned counsel is directed to accept notice for the respondents.

2.

The petitioner has challenged the Assessment Order at Annexure-'D' dated 29.02.2024 for the Assessment Year 2018-2019 and submits that the entirety of proceedings were ex-parte. It is further submitted that the proceedings started with the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act,

- 3 -

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8222 WP No. 3302 of 2026 1961 ['the Act' for short] and the information made out was with respect to cash deposits and cash withdrawal. It is submitted that the petitioner has information and substantive material to explain the same. It is further submitted that the cash deposits and withdrawal relates to business transactions.

3.

It is submitted that the lapse is only because of the Auditor not having informed the petitioner about the Show Cause Notice. In the light of the fact that the proceedings having culminated into an ex-parte order and in the light of assertion of the petitioner that they have material to explain the notice issued under Section 148A(b), it would meet the ends of justice, if bonafideness of lapse is accepted and the proceedings are re-opened.

4.

Accordingly, the order at Annexure-'B' dated 01.04.2022 is set aside and the consequential orders at Annexures-C, D, E and F are also set aside. The matter is remitted to the stage of reply to the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act.

- 4 -

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8222 WP No. 3302 of 2026

5.

In light of setting aside of the order at Annexure- 'B', the petitioner to appear before the jurisdictional Assessing Officer on 02.03.2026 without waiting for further notice.

6.

The petitioner to pay the costs of Rs.10,000/- [rupees ten thousand only] to the Karnataka Advocates Clerks Benevolent Trust, High Court Building, Bengaluru.

In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE HR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 21

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 →