MR JOSEPH ANGELO vs. THE ASSESSMENT UNIT

PDF · subscribers
WP/31664/2026HC KarnatakaKAHC01069676202607 October 2026Bench: B M SHYAM PRASAD7 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the petition in part, quashing the assessment order, computation sheet, notice of demand, penalty order, and subsequent computation sheet and notice of demand, all pertaining to Assessment Year 2024-25. The Court found that the petitioner, a septuagenarian, and his octogenarian accountant faced circumstances, including the petitioner's ill health and hospitalization since August 2025, which persuaded the Court to interfere. The Court granted the petitioner liberty to file a response along with all documents related to investments in the capital gains account and capital gains bonds, as enabled by the authorities pursuant to this Court's order. The specific amount in dispute was not recorded.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mr. Joseph Angelo, a septuagenarian, filed a writ petition challenging assessment orders, computation sheets, notices of demand, and a penalty order for Assessment Year 2024-25. These orders were passed by the Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre. The petitioner's income tax returns offered capital gains, excluding amounts invested in a capital gains account and capital gains bonds. However, upon receiving notices under Section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the petitioner failed to produce proof of these investments. The petitioner claims non-receipt of initial notices and subsequent adjournments due to ill health, hospitalization since August 2025, and his Chartered Accountant's advanced age. He stated that his wife, who had access to his login credentials, informed him about the assessment order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order dated 28.02.2026, computation sheet dated 28.02.2026, and notice of demand dated 28.02.2026, passed under Sections 143(3) read with 144B and 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2024-25, are liable to be quashed? 2. Whether the penalty order dated 23.09.2026, computation sheet dated 23.09.2026, and notice of demand dated 23.09.2026, passed under Sections 270A and 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2024-25, are liable to be quashed? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that he did not receive the initial notices and that subsequent failures to participate in proceedings were due to severe health issues, hospitalization, and the advanced age of his Chartered Accountant. He sought another opportunity to produce documents justifying his investment claims. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144B,Section 156,Section 270A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 31664 OF 2026 (T-IT)

BETWEEN:

MR JOSEPH ANGELO S/O LATE ANGELO JOSEPH CHELANGHARA, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.E-230, NATASHA GOLF VIEW APARTMENTS, NO. 2, NEW RING ROAD, DOMLUR, BENGALURU KARNATAKA- 560 071. ..PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANDEEP HUILGOL.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

THE ASSESSMENT UNIT NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, 2ND FLOOR, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, NEW DELHI-110003.

2.

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 3(3)(1), BANGALORE, HMT BHAWAN, NO. 59, BELLARY ROAD, GANGANAGAR,

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HC-KAR BENGALURU - 560032.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.M. THIRUMALESH., ADVOCATE A/W SRI. NIRMAL MATHEW., ADVOCATE)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO I. QUASH THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28.02.2026 BEARING DIN- ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2025- 26/1086695151(1) PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 144B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2024-25 (ANNEXURE -A); II. QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMPUTATION SHEET DATED 28.02.2026 BEARING DIN NO. ITBA/AST/S/324/20 25- 26/1086695208(1) ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2024-25 (ANNEXURE -A- 1); III. QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE OF DEMAND DATED 28.02.2026 BEARING DIN NO. ITBA/AST/S/156/2025- 26/1086695181(1) ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 156 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2024-25 (ANNEXURE A-2); IV. QUASH THE IMPUGNED PENALTY ORDER DATED 23.09.2026 BEARING DIN NO. ITBA/PNL/F/270A/2026-27/1093793703(1) ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 270A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2024-25 (ANNEXURE -B); V. QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMPUTATION SHEET DATED 23.09.2026 BEARING DIN NO. ITBA/PNL/S/270A/2025- 26/1086695201(1) ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2024-25 (ANNEXURE -B-1); VI. QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE OF DEMAND DATED 23.09.2026 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO. 1 UNDER SECTION 156 OF THE ACT, BEARING DIN NO. ITBA/PNL/S/156/2026- 27/1093791366(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2024-25 (ANNEXURE -B-2).

HC-KAR THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

ORAL ORDER

This petition is by a septuagenarian and he is assisted, as stated before this Court, by an Accountant, who is octagenarian. The petitioner's grievance is with the following which relate to the assessment year 2024-25.

Sl. No. Notices / orders Date Provisions of income tax act, 1961 Annexures 1. Assessment Order 28.02.2026 143(3) r.w.s 144B A 2. Computation Sheet 28.02.2026

A1 3. Notice of demand 28.02.2026 156 A2 4. Penalty Order 23.09.2026 270A B 5. Computation Sheet 23.09.2026

B1 6. Notice of Demand 23.09.2026 156 B2 HC-KAR 2 These proceedings under Section 143 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short, the Act] are because the petitioner has filed income-tax returns offering capital gains excluding the amounts invested in capital gains account and capital gains bonds but when issued with notice under Section 143[2] and later under 142[1] has failed to produce proof of investments in the capital gains account and the capital gains bonds.

3 Sri Sandeep Huilgol, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri M. Thirumalesh and Sri Nirmal Mathew, a learned Senior Standing Counsel and a Standing Counsel, who accept notice for both the respondents, are heard for disposal of the petition with Sri Sandeep Huilgol submitting that if another opportunity is extended, the petitioner will produce documents to justify his claim of investment in the capital gains account and in capital gains bonds.

HC-KAR 4 The petitioner has been issued with Intimation and Notice under Section 143[2] of the Act on 24.06.2025 and these have not been received by the petitioner. When notice under Section 142[1] of the Act is issued on 23.07.2025, the petitioner has requested for an adjournment and there are similar requests for adjournment when later notices are issued.

5 The petitioner, for the failure to participate in the proceedings has stated the following. i. He has been in and out of the hospital starting from August 2025. ii. If in the initial years it was for some treatment as against loss of vision, in the later days it is also for other ailments. iii. His Chartered Accountant has also crossed 89 years. iv. Given his health condition and that he is almost confined to bed, he has shared login HC-KAR credentials with his wife, who has gone through the emails and that when verified through another account, the petitioner has learnt about the assessment order.

These circumstances, persuade this Court to opine that a case is made out for interference. Hence, the following. ORDER

[A] The petition is allowed in-part quashing the following: Notices / orders Date Provisions of income tax act, 1961 Annexures Assessment Order 28.02.2026 143(3) R.W.S 144B A Computation Sheet 28.02.2026

A1 Notice of demand 28.02.2026 156 A2 Penalty Order 23.09.2026 270A B Computation Sheet 23.09.2026

B1 Notice of Demand 23.09.2026 156 B2 HC-KAR [B] The petitioner is reserved with liberty to file response along with all the documents of investments in capital gains account and capital gains bond as and when enabled by the authorities pursuant to this Court’s order.

Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

More judgments on Section 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →