RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP/57795/2018HC KarnatakaKAHC01053385201824 October 2025Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR5 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the petition. It held that it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner filed original returns on October 17, 2016, which were not processed. Subsequently, revised returns were filed on March 31, 2017, and these were processed. However, the notice under Section 143(2) dated July 3, 2017, was issued by the second respondent based on the original returns, which were never processed and had ceased to exist upon the processing of the revised returns. The Court reasoned that upon the processing of revised returns, the original returns become obliterated. Therefore, the notice under Section 143(2) ought to have been issued based on the revised returns. Since the notice was issued based on non-existent original returns, it was illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction. Consequently, all further proceedings pursuant to this notice were also quashed. The operative direction was to quash the notice dated July 3, 2017, and all subsequent proceedings.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, filed its income tax returns for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17 on October 17, 2016, before the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT), the first respondent. Subsequently, on March 31, 2017, it filed revised returns before the same authority. On July 3, 2017, the Income Tax Officer (ITO), the second respondent, issued a notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, proposing an assessment order under Section 143(3). The petitioner did not reply to this notice. Later, the ACIT issued notices under Section 142(1) and a show cause notice. The petitioner responded, arguing that the Section 143(2) notice was issued by the ITO based on the original returns, not the revised returns, making further proceedings illegal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the second respondent, based on the original returns which were not processed, is valid when revised returns for the same Assessment Year (2016-17) were filed and processed by the respondents? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, turning on Section 143(2) and Section 139(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's contention: The notice under Section 143(2) was issued by the second respondent based on the original returns, which were not processed. The petitioner had filed revised returns which were processed. Therefore, the notice based on non-existent original returns is illegal and without jurisdiction, rendering all subsequent proceedings invalid. Revenue's contention: The statement of objections filed by the respondents contended that the petition was liable to be dismissed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 143(3),Section 142(1),Section 139(5)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42132 WP No. 57795 of 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 57795 OF 2018 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES REP BY ITS REGISTRAR SRI SHIVANAND KAPASHI SON OF SRI BHIMAPPA KAPASHI AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 4TH ‘T’ BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 041. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. A. SHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. S. ANNAMALAI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

EXEMPTION CIRCLE – 1, UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE

MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 027.

2.

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WARD 7(2)(1), BMTC BUILDING,

80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK,

KORAMANGALA,

BENGALURU - 560 095. …RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. E.I.SANMATHI, ADVOCATE)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO NOT TO PASS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 143[3] OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 PURSUANT TO THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 143[2] OF THE INCOME -TAX ACT, 1961 BY THE R-2 AS ENCLOSED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A VIDE NOTICE DTD3.7.2017 FOR THE A.Y. 2016-17 AS ONE WITHOUT JURISDICTION.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka

- 2 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42132 WP No. 57795 of 2018

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER

In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:-

“ (a) Issue a writ of Mandamus or direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.1 to not to pass the assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 pursuant to the notice issued under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the respondent No.2 as enclosed and marked as Annexure-A vide Notice No. ITBA/AST/S/143(2)/2017- 18/1004779274(1) dated: 03.07.2017 for the A.Y.2016-17 as the one without jurisdiction.

(b) And pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity.”

2.

Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents – Revenue and perused the material on record.

3.

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that on 17.10.2016, petitioner filed income tax returns for the Assessment Year– 2016-17 before the 1st respondent, who has jurisdiction over the petition. Subsequently, on 31.03.2017, the petitioner filed revised returns before the 1st respondent for the aforesaid assessment year. On 03.07.2017, the 2nd respondent issued a notice under Section 143(2) of the I.T.Act proposing to pass an assessment order under Section 143(3) of the I.T.Act. The

- 3 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42132 WP No. 57795 of 2018

petitioner did not issue any reply to the said notice, subsequent to which, the 1st respondent issued a notice dated 22.06.2018 under Section 142(1) of the I.T.Act followed by show cause notice dated 12.11.2018, to which, the petitioner submitted replies dated 17.11.2018, 20.11.2018 and 17.12.2018 putting forth various contentions including the contention that the notice under Section 143(2) of the I.T.Act not having been issued by the 1st respondent but having been issued by the 2nd respondent based on the original returns and not based on the revised returns dated 31.03.2017 filed by the petitioner, all further proceedings pursuant to the same are illegal and are liable to be dropped. 4. It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite the detailed replies submitted by the petitioner and the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the 1st respondent is proceeding further in the matter for the purpose of passing assessment order under Section 143(3) of the I.T.Act, which is impermissible in law and as such, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. 5. The respondents have filed their statement of objections to the petition and contend that the same is liable to be dismissed.

- 4 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42132 WP No. 57795 of 2018

6.

A perusal of the material on record referred to supra will indicate that it is an undisputed fact that subsequent to filing original returns by the petitioner on 17.10.2016, the same was not processed by the respondents; on the other hand, the petitioner having filed revised returns on 31.03.2017, the same were processed by the respondents; however, despite not processing the original returns and after having processed the revised returns, the 2nd respondent issued the notice dated 03.07.2017 under Section 143(2) of the I.T.Act, based on the original returns (which were never processed) and not on the basis of the revised returns as required in law; in other words, upon the revised returns being processed by the respondents, the original returns ceased to exist and became obliterated, as a result of which, the notice under Section 143(2) ought to have been issued on the basis of the revised returns and not based upon the original non-existent returns and consequently, the said notice issued by the 1st respondent based on the original returns, which were not in existence and all further proceedings pursuant thereto were illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction or authority of law and contrary to

- 5 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42132 WP No. 57795 of 2018

the aforesaid provisions of the I.T.Act warranting interference by this Court in the present petition. 7. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the notice at Annexure-A dated 03.07.2017 issued by the 1st respondent under Section 143(2) of the I.T.Act being illegal as stated supra, all further proceedings pursuant thereto are also illegal, invalid and the same deserves to be quashed along with all further proceedings pursuant to the same by issuing appropriate directions in this regard. 8. In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER (i) Petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The Notice at Annexure-A dated 03.07.2017 issued by the 2nd respondent under Section143(2) of the I.T.Act and all further proceedings pursuant thereto including notices etc., issued by the 1st respondent at Annexure – D dated 22.06.2018, Annexure-G dated 12.11.2018 and Annexure-L dated 11.12.2018 are hereby quashed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE Srl.

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →