SMT SREEKAQULAM KUPENDRASETTY SHALINI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP/5072/2018HC KarnatakaKAHC01001751201807 November 2025Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, while acknowledging that several contentions were raised by both sides, decided to dispose of the writ petitions without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the rival contentions. The Court found that an equally efficacious and alternative remedy by way of an appeal under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was available against the impugned order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, the Court deemed it just and appropriate to dispose of the petitions, reserving liberty in favour of the petitioners to file a statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority. If such an appeal is preferred within eight weeks from the date of the order, the petitioners would be entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for the period spent before the High Court. All contentions were left open.

What were the facts?

These two writ petitions were filed by Mr. Hogethoppalu Basavaraja Setty and Smt. Sreekaqulam Kupendrasetty Shalini, respectively. They sought to quash the assessment order passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Chitradurga, under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated December 29, 2017, for the Assessment Year 2015-16. They also sought to quash the consequential notice of demand issued by the same authority on the same date for the same assessment year. The petitions were heard by the High Court of Karnataka.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should entertain writ petitions challenging an assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available under Section 246A of the Act. Assessee's contention: The petitioners sought to quash the assessment order and consequential demand notice. While specific arguments on the merits of the assessment were not detailed in the provided text, the prayer itself indicates a challenge to the assessment order. Revenue's contention: The revenue was represented by counsel, but their specific arguments on the merits of the assessment or the maintainability of the writ petition were not recorded in the judgment excerpt. However, the court's decision implies the availability of an alternative remedy was a key consideration.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 246A,Section 14

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

WP No. 5075 of 2018
WP No. 5072 of 2018

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

- 1 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45333 WP No. 5075 of 2018 C/W WP No. 5072 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 5075 OF 2018 (T-IT) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 5072 OF 2018 (T-IT) IN WP No. 5075/2018: BETWEEN: 1. MR. HOGETHOPPALU BASAVARAJA SETTY, S/O. MR. H. PAMPANNA SETTY, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT: C/O. M/S. BASAVESHWARA TRADING COMPANY, M.H. ROAD, CHITRADURGA-577501. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HARISH V.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, TAMATKAL ROAD, MEDEHALLI, CHITRADURGA-577502. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M. DILIP, ADVOCATE)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED Digitally signed by CHAITHANYA K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45333 WP No. 5075 of 2018 C/W WP No. 5072 of 2018 ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT U/S 143 (3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, DATED 29.12.2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 I.E., ANNEXURE-C AND CONSEQUENTIAL NOTICE OF DEMAND ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 29.12.2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 I.E., ANNEXURE-C-1. IN WP NO. 5072/2018: BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SREEKAQULAM KUPENDRASETTY SHALINI, W/O. MR.PRADEEP H.B., AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT NEAR HORTICULTURE OFFICE, V.P. EXTENSION, CHITRADURGA-577501. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. HARISH V.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, TAMATKAL ROAD, MEDEHALLI, CHITRADURGA-577502. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M. DILIP, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT U S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DTD.29.12.2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 i.e. ANNEXURE-C AND CONSEQUENTIAL NOTICE OF DEMAND ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DTD.29.12.2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR

- 3 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45333 WP No. 5075 of 2018 C/W WP No. 5072 of 2018 2015-16 i.e. ANNEXURE-C1. THESE PETITIONS, 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 these petitions, the petitioners seek the following reliefs.: "In W.P.No.5075/2018: (a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or such other Writ of appropriate nature and quash the impugned assessment order passed by the Respondent U/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated.29.12.2017 for the Assessment Year 2015-16 i.e., Annexure - C and consequential notice of demand issued by the Respondent Dated.29.12.2017 for the Assessment Year -2015-16 i.e., Annexure C-1, in the interest of equity and justice; and (b) Grant such other relief's as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case." In W.P.No.5072/2018: (a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or such other Writ of appropriate nature and quash the impugned assessment order passed by the Respondent

- 4 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45333 WP No. 5075 of 2018 C/W WP No. 5072 of 2018 U/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated.29.12.2017 for the Assessment Year 2015-16 i.e., Annexure - C and consequential notice of demand issued by the Respondent Dated.29.12.2017 for the Assessment Year -2015-16 i.e., Annexure C- 1, in the interest of equity and justice; and (b) Grant such other relief's as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case." 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record. 3. Though several contentions have been urged by both sides in support of their respective claims, having regard to the availability of equally efficacious and alternative remedy by way of an appeal under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the impugned order passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of these petitions, reserving liberty in favour of the petitioners, to file a statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority. If such an appeal is preferred within a period of eight (8) weeks from today, the petitioners would be entitled to the benefit of

- 5 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45333 WP No. 5075 of 2018 C/W WP No. 5072 of 2018 Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for the entire period spent before this Court in the present petitions. 4. Subject to the aforesaid directions and leaving open all contentions and reserving liberty in favour of the petitioners to prefer a statutory appeal, these petitions stand disposed of. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SJK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1

More judgments on Section 14

All 685 judgments and leading authorities on Section 14 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →