SRI. NATARAJU NELAMANE VISWESHRAGOWDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP/4901/2025HC KarnatakaKAHC01011202202520 March 2025Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Karnataka, while considering the petition, noted that it was an undisputed fact that the petitioner had not submitted a reply or response to the Section 143(2) notice. However, in light of the petitioner's specific assertion that the omission was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances, and sufficient cause, and the request for one more opportunity to submit the reply and documents, the Court deemed it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned orders. The matter was remitted back to Respondent No. 1 for reconsideration afresh from the stage of submitting the petitioner's reply to the Section 143(2) notice. Liberty was reserved for the petitioner to submit additional pleadings and documents. The Court did not decide on the merits of the assessment or penalties themselves, focusing solely on providing an opportunity to the assessee to respond.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sri. Nataraju Nelamane Viswesharagowda, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging orders passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (Respondent No. 2). The assessment year in question is 2022-23. The impugned orders include an assessment order under Section 144 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 15.02.2024, and penalty orders under Section 271AAC(1) and Section 272A(1)(d) of the Act, both dated 01.08.2024. The petitioner contended that he did not receive the notice issued under Section 143(2) of the Act and was unaware of it, preventing him from submitting a reply and documents due to bonafide reasons and unavoidable circumstances.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order passed under Section 144 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the penalty orders under Section 271AAC(1) and Section 272A(1)(d) of the Act for the assessment year 2022-23 are liable to be quashed on the ground that the petitioner did not receive the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act and consequently could not submit a reply due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances, and sufficient cause. Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the notice under Section 143(2) was not received, leading to an inability to respond. This omission was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances, and sufficient cause. The petitioner sought an opportunity to submit a reply and documents by setting aside the impugned orders. Revenue's contention: The respondents argued 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 144,Section 144B,Section 143(2),Section 271AAC(1),Section 272A(1)(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:11674 WP No. 4901 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 4901 OF 2025 (T-IT) BETWEEN: SRI.NATARAJU NELAMANE VISWESHARAGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, S/O NATARAJU, NELAMANE VILLAGE, S.R.PATNA TALUK, MANDYA - 571 435. PAN:BCNPN4567P. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVI SHANKAR S V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 & TPS, MANDYA - 571 401. 2. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ROOM NO.401, 2ND FLOOR, E-RAMP, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, DELHI - 110 003. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.M.THIRUMALESH, ADVOCATE)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 144 R.W.S 144B DATED 15.02.2024 BEARING DIN NO.ITBA/AST/S/144/2023-24/1061048915(1) ISSUED Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

- 2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:11674 WP No. 4901 of 2025 BY THE R-2 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2022-23 HEREIN MARKED AS ANNEXURE - A AND ETC.,

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: (i) Issue a writ of Certiorari or direction in the nature of a writ of certiorari quashing the order passed Under section 144 r.w.s 144B dated 15/02/2024 bearing DIN No.ITBA/AST/S/144/2023-24/1061048915(1) issued by the Respondent No. 2 for the assessment year 2022-23 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 under Section 271AAC(1) of the Act dated 01/08/2024 bearing DIN No. ITBA/PNL/F/271AAC(1)/2024- 25/1067220683(1), issued by the Respondent No.2 for the assessment year 2022-23 herein marked as Annexure - A1. (iii) Issue a writ of Certiorari or direction in the nature of a writ of certiorari quashing the penalty order under Section 272A(1)(d) of the Act dated 01/08/2024 bearing DIN No. ITBA/PNL/F/272A(1)(d)/2024- 25/1067218091(1), issued by the Respondent No.2

- 3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:11674 WP No. 4901 of 2025 for the assessment year 2022-23 herein marked as Annexure - A2. (iv) And pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity. 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 143(2) 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 143(2) 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 and

- 4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:11674 WP No. 4901 of 2025 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 143(2) 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 143(2) 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 15.02.2024 passed under Section 144 read with Section 144B of Income Tax Act; Annexures-A1 and A2 dated 01.08.2024 passed under Sections 271AAC(1) and 272A(1)(d) of the 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

- 5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:11674 WP No. 4901 of 2025 the petitioner to Section 143(2) notice and to proceed further in accordance with law. 6. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby allowed and remanded. (ii) Impugned order/penalty orders at Annexure–A dated 15.02.2024, Annexures-A1 and A2 dated 01.08.2024 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 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. (iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit additional pleadings, documents, etc., to the concerned respondent, who shall consider the same and proceed further in accordance with law. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SMJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29

More judgments on Section 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →