RAMAKRISHNAIAH MANJUNATH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP/9443/2025HC KarnatakaKAHC01020294202504 April 2025Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR6 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the petition. It was an undisputed fact that the petitioner failed to submit a reply to the notice issued under Section 148A(b). However, the petitioner represented that this omission was due to bona fide reasons and unavoidable circumstances, and he sought an opportunity to file a reply. The Court found sufficient cause shown by the petitioner and deemed it just and appropriate to grant one more opportunity. Consequently, the impugned orders dated 13.03.2023 (under Section 148A(d)), the orders dated 22.03.2024 (under Sections 147 and 144), and the orders dated 26.09.2024 (under Sections 272A(1)(d), 271AAC(1), and 270A), along with the consequential demand notices, were set aside. The matter was remitted back to the respondent No.1 for reconsideration from the stage of submitting the petitioner's reply to the Section 148A(b) notice. Liberty was granted to the petitioner to submit additional pleadings and documents.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ramakrishnaih Manjunath, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging several orders and demand notices issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (1st Respondent) for the assessment year 2019-20. These included orders under Sections 147, 144, 272A(1)(d), 271AAC(1), and 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with consequential demand notices. The core of the issue stemmed from the petitioner's failure to respond to a notice dated 06.02.2023 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act. Consequently, the respondent proceeded to pass ex-parte orders, which are now under challenge. The petitioner contended that his non-response was due to being an individual not conversant with the process and that notices were sent via email, which he missed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should quash the order dated 22.03.2024 passed by the 1st Respondent under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential demand notice for the assessment year 2019-20? The petitioner argued that he did not respond to the Section 148A(b) notice due to being an individual not conversant with the process and requested an opportunity to file a reply. The revenue's contention is not explicitly recorded, but their actions imply they proceeded based on the lack of response. 2. Whether the High Court should quash the orders and demand notices dated 26.09.2024 passed under Sections 272A(1)(d), 271AAC(1), and 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2019-20? Similar to the first issue, the petitioner sought an opportunity to respond, attributing the omission to bona fide reasons. The revenue's stance on these penalty and assessment orders is not detailed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 156,Section 272A(1)(d),Section 271AAC(1),Section 270A,Section 148A(b),Section 148A(d),Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:14537 WP No. 9443 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 9443 OF 2025 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

RAMAKRISHNAIAH MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT 69, GARUDAKCHARPALYA, WHITEFIELD ROAD, MAHADEVAPURA POST, BANGALORE-560 048. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. T. SURYANARAYANA SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

2.

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) BMTC, BUILDING, 6TH BLOCK, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 095. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M DILIP, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by KORLAHALLI BHARATHIDEVIKRISHNACHARYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:14537 WP No. 9443 of 2025

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 22.03.2024 BEARING NO. ITBA/AST/S/147/2023- 24/1063219569(1) (ANNEXURE-E) PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 147 READ WITH SECTION 144 OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2019-20 AND QUASH THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 22.03.2024 BEARING NO. ITBA/AST/S/156/2023-24/1063219634(1) ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE-F) TO THE PETITION UNDER SECTION 156 OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2019-20 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:

" (a) Quashing the order dated 22.03.2024 bearing No. ITBA/AST/S/147/2023-24/1063219569(1) (Annexure E) passed by the 1st Respondent under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act for the assessment year 2019-20;

(b) Quashing the demand notice dated 22.03.2024 bearing No. ITBA/AST/S/156/2023-24/1063219634(1) issued by the 1st Respondent (Annexure F) to the Petitioner under Section 156 of the Act for the assessment year 2019-20; and

(c) Quashing of the order dated 26.09.2024 bearing No. ITBA/PNL/F/272A(1)(d)/2024-25/1069213620(1) passed by the 1st Respondent (Annexure H-1) under Section 272A(1)(d) of the Act for the assessment year 2019-20;

(d) Quashing of the demand notice dated 26.09.2024 bearing No. ITBA/PNL/S/156/2024- 25/1069211591(1) issued by the 1st Respondent (Annexure H-2) under Section 156 of the Act for the assessment year 2019-20;

- 3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:14537 WP No. 9443 of 2025

(e) Quashing of the order dated 26.09.2024 bearing No. ITBA/PNL/F/271AAC(1)/2024-25/1069225788(1) passed by the 1st Respondent (Annexure J-1) under Section 271AAC(1) of the Act for the assessment year 2019-20;

(f) Quashing of the demand notice dated 26.09.2024 bearing No. ITBA/PNL/S/156/2024-25/1069211588(1) issued by the 1st Respondent (Annexure J-2) under Section 156 of the Act for the assessment year 2019-20;

(g) Quashing of the order dated 26.09.2024 bearing No. ITBA/PNL/F/270A/2024-25/1069220761(1) passed by the 1st Respondent (Annexure K-1) under Section 270A of the Act for the assessment year 2019-20;

(h) Quashing of the demand notice dated 26.09.2024 bearing No. ITBA/PNL/S/156/2024-25/1069219821(1) issued by the 1st Respondent (Annexure K-2) under Section 156 of the Act for the assessment year 2019-20;

(i) Quashing of the order dated 13.03.2023 bearing No. ITBA/AST/F/148A/2022-23/1050668372(1) passed by the 1st Respondent (Annexure B) under Section 148A(d) of the Act for the assessment year 2019-20;

(j) Quashing of notice dated 13.03.2023 bearing No. ITBA/AST/148_1/2022-23/1050684924(1) issued by the 1st Respondent (Annexure C) under Section 148 of the Act for the assessment year 2019-20;

(k) pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interests of justice and equity."

2.

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

- 4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:14537 WP No. 9443 of 2025

3.

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that though several contentions have been urged by both sides in respect of their respective claims, however, it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner did not submit any reply to the notice dated 06.02.2023 vide Annexure-A issued by the respondents under Section 148A (b) of Income-tax Act, 1961, as a result of which, the respondent No.1 has proceeded to pass the impugned orders at Annexure-`B' dated 13.03.2023 under Section 148A(d) of the Income-tax Act, followed by consequent notices, orders etc., all of which are assailed in the present petition. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being an individual and not conversant, as such, the notices sent through E-mail were not responded by him and if an opportunity is provided, the petitioner will file a reply and contest the proceedings in accordance with law. 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 148A(b) 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

- 5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:14537 WP No. 9443 of 2025

documents to Section 148A(b) notice was due to bona fide reasons and unavoidable circumstances, and as sufficient cause is shown by the petitioner, I deem it just and appropriate to grant one more opportunity to the petitioner to submit reply along with documents, by setting aside the impugned orders at Annexure-`B', dated 13.03.2023, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income-tax Act, and subsequent notice / orders, etc., and remitting the matter back to respondent No.1 for reconsideration afresh from the stage of submitting of reply by the petitioner to Section 148A(b) notice 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 Annexure-B dated 13.03.2023, Annexures-E and F dated 22.03.2024, Annexures-H-1, H-2, J-1, J-2, K-1 and K-2 dated 26.09.2024, 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

- 6 -

NC: 2025:KHC:14537 WP No. 9443 of 2025

Section 148A(b) of the IT Act at Annexure-C dated 13.03.2023.

(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

BK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →