NARAYAN PRAMOD vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court of Karnataka allowed the petition. The Court found it undisputed that the petitioner had submitted a reply in part to the notice under Section 142(1) of the IT Act dated January 30, 2025, and that the respondent No. 2 proceeded to pass the impugned order without providing an opportunity for the petitioner to complete his submissions and file supporting documents. Consequently, the Court deemed it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned assessment order and demand notice. The matter was remitted back to the 2nd respondent for reconsideration afresh from the stage of the petitioner submitting a reply/response to the notice under Section 142(1) of the IT Act. The petitioner was granted liberty to submit additional pleadings and documents, which the respondent was directed to consider before proceeding further in accordance with law. The Court explicitly reserved liberty for the petitioner to submit additional pleadings and documents.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Narayan Pramod, proprietor of Raghavendra Gas Agencies, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging an assessment order dated February 28, 2025, passed by the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (2nd respondent), and a demand notice. The petitioner had received notices under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on October 24, 2024, and January 17, 2025. The petitioner filed replies on December 23, 2024, and January 20, 2025. A further reply to a Section 142(1) notice dated January 30, 2025, was filed in part on February 5, 2025. The petitioner contended that the assessment order was passed without providing a full opportunity to complete submissions and file supporting documents.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the assessment order dated February 28, 2025, passed by the 2nd respondent under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is liable to be quashed for violation of principles of natural justice, specifically for not providing adequate opportunity to the petitioner to complete his submissions and file supporting documents? Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the 2nd respondent passed the impugned assessment order without affording a complete opportunity to the petitioner to file his submissions and supporting documents in response to the notices issued under Section 142(1) of the IT Act. The petitioner sought an opportunity to file complete replies and supporting documents, requesting the setting aside of the impugned order and a direction to the respondents to reconsider the matter after considering the petitioner's full response. Revenue's Contentions: The respondents contended that there was no merit in the petition and that it was liable to be dismissed.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
- 1 -
NC: 2025:KHC:15941 WP No. 9142 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.9142 OF 2025 (T-IT)
BETWEEN:
NARAYAN PRAMOD MIC 17 RAGHAVENDRA GAS AGENCIES, MARUTI TEMPLE ROAD, GANGORTHRI LAYOUT, MYSORE-570 009, KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI. NAYARAN PRAMOD PAN No.APZPP1376C. AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS …PETITIONER (BY SRI SRI MALLAHAR RAO, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BENGALURU -4, 5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU -560 095
THE ASSESSMENT UNIT INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT NEW DELHI-110001. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, INSIDE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, NEW DELHI – 110001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.THIRUMALESH AND SRI M.DILIP, ADVOCATES)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28.02.2025 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE DIN NO.
Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 2 -
NC: 2025:KHC:15941 WP No. 9142 of 2025
ITBA/AST/S/147/2024-25/1073853959(1) ENCLOSED AND PRODUCED AS ANNX-G AND G1 REFRAIN FROM THE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AND TAKE SUCH NECESSARY MEASURES/STEPS IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED AO DATED 28.02.2025 PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE DIN NO. ITBA/AST/S/147/2024-25 /1073853959(1) ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE VIDE DIN NO. ITBA/AST/S/156/2024-25/107385403(1) IS ENCLOSED AND PRODUCED AS ANNX-G AND G1 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 Writ of Certiorari or in the like nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned assessment order dated 28.02.2025, passed by 2nd respondent vide DIN No. ITBA/AST/S/147/2024-25/1073853959(1) along with demand notice vide DIN No. ITBA/AST/S/156/2024- 25/107385403(1) is enclosed and produced as ANNEXURE-G & G1; (ii) Issue Writ of Mandamus or writ of direction to the respondent authorities to refrain from further proceedings and take such necessary measures / steps in respect of the impugned assessment order dated 28.02.2025, passed by 2nd respondent vide DIN No. ITBA/AST/S/147/2024-25/1073853959(1) along with demand notice vide DIN No. ITBA/AST/S/156/2024- 25/107385403(1) is enclosed and produced as ANNEXURE-G & G1;
- 3 -
NC: 2025:KHC:15941 WP No. 9142 of 2025
(iii) Issue Writ of Prohibition, not to proceed further steps or measures or any such kind of initiatives pertaining to recovery(s) over the impugned demand made thereof; directing the respondent authorities to refrain from further coercive steps, in any manner of whatsoever in nature, in accordance to the impugned assessment order dated 28.02.2025, passed by 2nd respondent vide DIN No. ITBA/AST/S/147/2024-25/1073853959(1) along with demand notice vide DIN No. ITBA/AST/S/156/2024- 25/107385403(1) enclosed and produced as ANNEXURE-G & G1.”
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 the respondents issued various notices under the Income Tax Act (for short ‘IT Act’) including notices under section 142(1) of the IT Act dated 24.10.2024 and 17.01.2025. In response to the notices issued by the respondents the Petitioner filed his replies dated 23.12.2024, 20.01.2025 and with respect to notice under section 142(1) of the IT Act dated
- 4 -
NC: 2025:KHC:15941 WP No. 9142 of 2025
30.01.2025 the petitioner filed his reply in part dated 05.02.2025. It is submitted that the respondent no. 2 without providing an opportunity for the petitioner to complete his submissions and file supporting documents proceeded to pass the impugned order passed under section 147 r/w Section 144B of the Act at Annexure G, dated 28.02.2025. The counsel for the petitioner also submits that if one more opportunity is provided to the petitioner to reply to the notices along with supporting documents by setting aside the impugned orders and notices, the petitioner would do so, and respondents may be directed to proceed further in accordance with law after considering the replies filed by the petitioner. 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 and the material on record will indicate that it is an undisputed fact that petitioner submitted reply/response in part to notice under Section 142(1) of the IT Act dated 30.01.2025 and the respondent no.2 without providing an opportunity for the petitioner to complete his submissions and file supporting
- 5 -
NC: 2025:KHC:15941 WP No. 9142 of 2025
documents proceeded to pass the impugned order under section 147 r/w Section 144B of the Act at Annexures-G and G1, dated 28.02.2025. Under these circumstances, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order at Annexures–G and G1 dated 28.02.2025 and subsequent notice/orders, etc., and remit the matter back to respondent No.2 for reconsideration afresh from the stage of petitioner submitting of reply/response to notice under section 142(1) of the IT Act and in the event the petitioner files its reply/ response along with supporting documents, the respondent is directed to consider such reply/ response filed by the petitioner and to proceed further in accordance with law. 6. In the result, pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby allowed. (ii) Impugned notices / orders at Annexures-G and G1 are hereby set aside. (iii) Matter is remitted back to respondent No.2 for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law from the stage of petitioner submitting of additional reply along with supporting documents to the Notice under
- 6 -
NC: 2025:KHC:15941 WP No. 9142 of 2025
Section 142(1) of the IT Act at Annexure – D dated 30.01.2025. (iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit additional pleadings, documents, etc., to the respondent, who shall consider the same and proceed further in accordance with law.
Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE
kcm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18
More judgments on Section 142(1)
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Subhash Chand Saini, Jaipur vs ITO Ward, Behror, BherorITA 36/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gaurav Jiteshbhai Joshi, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1000/RJT/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sampat Raj Jain vs. The State Of Assam And 3 Ors.Gauhati · 3 Nov 2026
- Sri Hardik Gowda vs. Sri Jayaram PKarnataka · 3 Nov 2026
- Shiv Ram vs. State Of Hp And OrsHimachal Pradesh · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S Ampl Resources PVT. LTD., Through Sri Om Prakash Pareek, Authorised Signatory vs. The State Of JharkhandJharkhand · 3 Nov 2026
- Saleem vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 3 Nov 2026