SHRI. PUTTASWAMY BADREGOWDA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was in violation of the statutory mandate. The Court noted that Section 148A(b) requires an opportunity of being heard by serving a notice to show cause within a specified time, not less than seven days and not exceeding thirty days. The notice dated 21.03.2022, which required a reply by 25.03.2022, clearly contravened this legal requirement, providing only four days. This violation of the statutory mandate caused prejudice to the petitioner. Consequently, the Court found it appropriate to set aside the defective notice and all consequential proceedings, including the order under Section 148A(d), the notice under Section 148, the orders under Section 147 read with Section 144, and the penalty orders under Sections 272A(1)(d) and 271AAC(1). The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to take appropriate action regarding the subject matter, with the petitioner agreeing not to raise any contention regarding limitation. The ratio decidendi is that a notice issued in contravention of a statutory minimum notice period renders the notice and all subsequent proceedings void.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Shri. Puttaswamy Badregowda, filed a writ petition challenging several notices and orders issued by the Income Tax Officer and the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. These included a notice under Section 148A(b) dated 21/03/2022 for Assessment Year 2018-19, a consequential order under Section 148A(d), a notice under Section 148, orders under Section 147 read with Section 144, and penalty orders under Section 272A(1)(d) and Section 271AAC(1). The petitioner contended that he was not intimated or served with any notice, leading to his non-participation in the proceedings. A key fact admitted was that the notice under Section 148A(b) directed a reply by 25.03.2022, a period of only four days from the issuance date.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 21/03/2022, is in violation of the statutory mandate regarding the time provided for reply, and if so, whether it vitiates the consequential proceedings. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that he was not intimated or served with any notice, and consequently, did not participate in the proceedings. He specifically highlighted that the notice under Section 148A(b) provided an unreasonably short period of four days (21/03/2022 to 25/03/2022) for him to submit a reply, which is contrary to the statutory requirement of not less than seven days. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue in response to the petitioner's contentions regarding the short notice period or the non-participation.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 148A(b),Section 148A(d),Section 148,Section 147,Section 144,Section 272A(1)(d),Section 271AAC(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: SHRI. PUTTASWAMY BADREGOWDA
- 1 -
NC: 2024:KHC:20642 WP No. 9334 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 9334 OF 2024 (T-IT) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. PUTTASWAMY BADREGOWDA SON OF LATE BADREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, NO.135, 6TH CROSS BAPUJI LAYOUT, CHANDRA LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 040. PREVIOUSLY AT: NO.96, 1ST CROSS, 6TH MAIN, PIPELANE WEST KASTURIBANA BANGALORE - 560 026 … PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVI SHANKAR S V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 5 (2) (1) BANGALORE BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU - 560 095 Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 2 -
NC: 2024:KHC:20642 WP No. 9334 of 2024 2. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 3, BANGALORE BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE KORAMANGALA BANGALORE - 560 095 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. THIRUMALESH M., ADVOCATE)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO i) QUASH THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148A(b) OF THE ACT DATED 21/03/2022 BEARING DIN NO. ITBA/AST/F/148A(SCN)/2021- 22/1041185349(1) ISSUED BY THE R1 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19 HEREIN MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER
Petitioner has sought to challenge the notice under Section 148-A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') at Annexure-A and the consequential order under Section 148-A(d) of the Act; notice under Section 148 of the Act at Annexure-A2; the order under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act at Annexure-A3; penalty order under Section 272A(1)(d) of the Act at Annexure-A4; penalty order under Section 271AAC(1) of
- 3 -
NC: 2024:KHC:20642 WP No. 9334 of 2024 the Act at Annexure-A5 and the order under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act at Annexure-A6. 2. It is noticed that the notice under Section 148- A(b) of the Act issued on 21.03.2022 directs for submission of reply by 25.03.2022. The admitted fact is that the petitioner has not participated in the proceedings, due to bonafide reasons as he was not intimated nor was there any notice served on him. 3. It is to be noticed that Section 148A(b) of the Act reads as follows: "provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, by serving upon him a notice to show cause within such time, as may be specified in the notice, being not less than seven days and but not exceeding thirty days from the date on which such notice is issued, or such time, as may be extended by him on the basis of an application in this behalf, as to why a notice under Section 148 should not be issued on the basis of information which suggests that income chargeable to tax has
- 4 -
NC: 2024:KHC:20642 WP No. 9334 of 2024 escaped assessment in his case for the relevant assessment year and results of enquiry conducted, if any, as per clause (a)." 4. The mandate for giving notice of not less than 7 days for reply is a statutory mandate and the Central Board of Direct Taxes by the Guidelines issued for issuance of notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act reiterates at (vii) that 7 to 30 days time to be given for submitting the reply. 5. Clause (vii) of the said Guidelines reads as follows: "vii. If the result of enquiry/information available suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, the AO shall provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee by issuing a show cause notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act. The said notice shall provide between 7 to 30 days' time to the assessee for submitting the reply. A template of show cause notice is enclosed at Annexure-A1". 6. Clearly, there is violation of the legal mandate insofar as the time given for reply, which has caused
- 5 -
NC: 2024:KHC:20642 WP No. 9334 of 2024 prejudice to the petitioner. It is further noticed that the petitioner not having participated in the proceedings, it would meet the ends of justice to afford another opportunity to the petitioner to take part in the proceedings. Once the notice is defective as being contrary to the legal mandate and is defective, the consequential proceedings including the order under Section 148A(d) are required to be set aside on the ground that the notice suffers from violation of the statutory mandate. 7. Accordingly, the notice under Section 148-A(b) of the Act is set aside and the consequential order under Section 148-A(d) of the Act; notice under Section 148 of the Act at Annexure-A2; the order under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act at Annexure-A3; penalty order under Section 272A(1)(d) of the Act at Annexure-A4; penalty order under Section 271AAC(1) of the Act at Annexure-A5 and the order under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act at Annexure-A6, are also set aside. Liberty is reserved to the Revenue to take appropriate
- 6 -
NC: 2024:KHC:20642 WP No. 9334 of 2024 action as regards to the subject matter of the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act and the petitioner would not take up any contention regarding limitation. 8. Accordingly, petition is disposed off. Sd/- JUDGE VP
More judgments on Section 148A(b)
- Venkata Durga Agencies, Kakinada vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, KakinadaITA 692/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- M/S Mittal Alloy Castings Co., Raigarh vs ACIT, Circle-1(1), BilaspurITA 685/RPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Heard12 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Ashok Khubchandani, Raipur vs DCIT, Circle 1(1), RaipurITA 437/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Farman Sk, Malda vs I.T.O., Ward - 3(1), MaldaITA 3001/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2020-2021
- Pramila Satyanarayan Bhandari, Surat vs DCIT, Circle-1(3), SuratITA 22/SRT/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Kajaria Ceramics Limited vs. Mr Yomesh VijayaDelhi · 3 Nov 2026
- Marico Limited vs. Shree Uday Oil And Food Industries LLPDelhi · 3 Nov 2026
- Laborate Pharmaceuticals INDIA Limited vs. M/S Jmbs Healthcare Through Its PartnersDelhi · 3 Nov 2026
- Pharmed Limited vs. Best Biotech & Ors.Delhi · 3 Nov 2026
- Kbb Nuts PVT. Limited vs. Mr. Suresh Chand & Ors.Delhi · 3 Nov 2026