R S PAPERS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP/9774/2026HC KarnatakaKAHC01021514202601 April 2026Bench: S SUNIL DUTT YADAV4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court set aside the assessment order (Annexure-B1) and consequential proceedings (Annexures-B2, B3, and C). The Court noted the medical certificate (Annexure-F) and the financial implications of the order standing. It was deemed appropriate to set aside the order and remit the matter back to the stage of replying to the show-cause notice dated 15.01.2026. All contentions on merits were kept open. The ratio decidendi is that where an assessee is unable to present their case due to a documented medical ailment, and the assessment order is passed without considering their submissions, the principles of natural justice warrant setting aside the order and remitting the matter for a fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, R.S. Papers, a registered partnership firm, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging an assessment order (Annexure-B1) and consequential proceedings (Annexures-B2, B3, and C). The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed without considering their reply or explanation, and they were unable to present their case due to a medical ailment, as evidenced by a certificate (Annexure-F). The assessment order itself noted that the assessee had not furnished any reply, explanation, or documentary evidence regarding the nature and source of credits in their bank account or the utilization of funds. The assessment year in question is not explicitly stated for the assessment order, but a notice dated 22.03.2022 issued under Section 148A(b) for AY 2018-19 is also challenged.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order passed for AY 2018-19 (implied) is valid when the assessee claims to have been unable to furnish a reply due to a medical ailment, and the order notes the absence of a reply. This issue turns on the principles of natural justice and the procedural fairness required under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee contended that the order was passed in the absence of their reply and that they were unable to make out their stand on merits due to a medical ailment, seeking an opportunity to reply. The revenue did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment, but the assessment order noted the assessee's failure to furnish any reply or explanation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17862 WP No. 9774 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 9774 OF 2026 (T-IT) BETWEEN: R.S. PAPERS, REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER M.K. RAGHAVENDRA MURTHY, S/O LATE SRI. M.N. KRISHNA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OFFICE AT 12/1, 2ND FLOOR, SRIRANGA APARTMENTS, 2ND B CROSS, KATHRIGUPPE MAIN ROAD, BANASHANKARI 3RD, STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 086. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. G. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7(2)(5), 80 FEET ROAD, BMTC BUILDING, SONY SIGNAL, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 034. 2. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ROOM NO.401, 2ND, FLOOR, E RAMP, Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17862 WP No. 9774 of 2026 JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, DELHI - 110 003. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE UNSIGNED NOTICE DATED 22.03.2022 ISSUED U/S 148A(b) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 FOR THE AY 2018-19 BEARING DIN AND NOTICE NO. ITBA/AST/F/148A (SCN)/2021- 22/1041270656(1), HEREIN MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A1 AND ETC.,

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER Learned counsel, Sri. E.I. Sanmathi accepts notice for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has challenged the validity of the order of assessment at Annexure-B1. It is submitted that the assessment order has been passed in the absence of any reply of the petitioner or explanation and the petitioner was unable to make out his stand on merits, in light of medical ailment as reflected from the certificate at

- 3 -

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17862 WP No. 9774 of 2026 Annexure-F. It is further submitted that if the order is allowed to stand, the petitioner would suffer undue hardship and an opportunity be given to the petitioner to make out reply to the show-cause notice, by setting aside the impugned order. 3. Perused the order at Annexure-B1. The authority has clearly observed that assessee has not furnished any reply or explanation nor has placed on record any documentary evidence to explain the nature and source of credits appearing in the bank account. Further, it is observed that no clarification has been provided regarding utilization of funds. 4. In light of the medical certificate at Annexure-F and noticing the financial implications of the order being allowed to stand, it would be appropriate to set aside the order at Annexure-B1 and remit the matter to the stage of reply to show-cause notice dated 15.01.2026. Further

- 4 -

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17862 WP No. 9774 of 2026 consequential proceedings at Annexures-B2, B3 and C are also set aside. All contentions on merits are kept open. Accordingly, petition is disposed of. SD/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE MCR

More judgments on Section 148A(b)

All 524 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →