INAYATULLA vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP/38135/2025HC KarnatakaKAHC01082393202528 January 2026Bench: S SUNIL DUTT YADAV4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the order passed under Section 148A(d) was vitiated by a defect in the notice procedure, specifically the alleged non-service of the Section 148A(b) notice on the petitioner. The Court observed that the order was passed without any reply from the petitioner. To meet the ends of justice, the Court decided to set aside the order under Section 148A(d) and consequential orders. The matter was remitted back to the stage of providing a reply to the notice under Section 148A(b). The High Court explicitly stated that all contentions were kept open. The principle derived is that if a notice under Section 148A(b) is not properly served, leading to an order under Section 148A(d) without the assessee's response, the order can be set aside, and the matter remanded for proper procedure.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Inayatulla, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging an order passed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2017-18. The petitioner contended that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) was not served on him, and the email ID mentioned in the impugned order was created by his auditor and not communicated to him. The revenue argued that the email ID belonged to the petitioner and he was responsible for any lack of communication from his auditor. The High Court noted that the order under Section 148A(d) was passed without any reply from the petitioner.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is illegal and perverse due to non-service of the notice under Section 148A(b) on the petitioner? The assessee (petitioner) argued that the notice under Section 148A(b) was not served on him, and the email ID used for communication was not his own but one created by his auditor, which was not shared with him. He sought an opportunity to respond to the notice. The revenue (respondents) contended that the email ID was indeed that of the petitioner and that the petitioner was solely responsible if his auditor failed to communicate the notices to him. The revenue did not explicitly state any reliance on specific authorities or precedents.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A(d),Section 148A(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4469 WP No. 38135 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 38135 OF 2025 (T-IT)

BETWEEN:

INAYATULLA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, SON OF LATE MOHAMMED SIBGATHULLA NO.5 MOORE ROAD, FRAZER TOWN, BANGALORE-560005. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. PRATIBHA VASANTRAO RAJESHWARKAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, WARD- 1(2)(1) BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560095.

2.

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE NORTH BLOCK, DELHI-110001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. DILIP, ADVOCATE)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 IN ITBA/AST/F/148A/2023-24/1061606210(1) DATED 27.02.2024 AY-2017-18 WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B AS BEING PERVERSE, ILLEGAL AND UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW, THEREBY

Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4469 WP No. 38135 of 2025

DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO.1 TO CANCEL THE ORDER PASSED U/S 148A(D) OF THE ACT 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

ORDER

The present petition has been filed seeking to set aside the impugned order at Annexure-B which is an order passed under 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2.

It is the case of the petitioner that the order at Annexure-B was preceded by a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act and such notice was not served on the petitioner. It is submitted that the email ID of the petitioner referred to in the order at Annexure-B is an email ID created by the auditor and was not communicated to the petitioner.

3.

It is noticed that the order under Section 148A(d) at Annexure-B has been passed without any reply

- 3 -

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4469 WP No. 38135 of 2025

to the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act as is made out in para 4 of the order.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that taking note of the consequences and that petitioner has material to demonstrate that the order under Section 148A(d) need not be passed, an opportunity may be provided.

5.

Sri. Dilip M, learned counsel for the revenue submits that the email ID referred to at Annexure-B is that of the petitioner and the petitioner is solely responsible if the auditor has not communicated regarding the notices sent to the petitioner.

6.

Taking note of the consequences flowing from the order passed under Section 148A(d) and noticing that the order is passed without any reply of the petitioner, it would be appropriate to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to make out reply to the notice issued under Section 148A(b), which would meet the ends of justice.

- 4 -

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4469 WP No. 38135 of 2025

7.

Accordingly, the order at Annexure-B is set aside and the consequential orders at Annexures-C and D are also set aside in light of the defect notice vitiating the order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act. The matter is remitted to the stage of reply to the notice under Section 148A(b). All contentions are kept open.

8.

In light of the above, the writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE

More judgments on Section 148A(d)

All 544 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A(d) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →