DR P DAYANANDA PAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
ITA/613/2022HC KarnatakaKAHC01059207202229 October 2025Bench: B M SHYAM PRASAD,T.M.NADAF6 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that if a reassessment is made after four years without prior sanction from the Jurisdictional Commissioner, it cannot be sustained. Consequently, the reassessment order and all subsequent appellate orders are set aside.

What were the facts?

The appeal concerns the reassessment of income for AY 2005-06, undertaken after a lapse of four years. The primary contention is whether the Jurisdictional Commissioner of Income Tax had granted prior sanction for this reassessment.

What were the issues?

Whether reassessment proceedings initiated after four years are valid without prior sanction from the Jurisdictional Commissioner of Income Tax.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43035-DB ITA No. 613 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 613 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

DR P DAYANANDA PAI S/O LATE P NARASIMHA PAI AGED 77 YEARS, R/AT NO.10/1 LAKSHMINARAYANA COMPLEX PALACE ROAD BANGALORE-560052.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. M.V. SESHACHALA., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NAGHARISH G S.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(2) C R BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BENGALURU-560001.

Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka

- 2 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43035-DB ITA No. 613 of 2022

2.

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE C R BUILDING QUEENS ROAD BENGALURU-560001.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.E.I. SANMATHI., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 26/07/2022 IN ITA.NO.150/BANG/2020 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 PRAYING TO 1. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE; 2. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE

TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN ITA.NO.150/BANG/2020 DATED 26.07.2022 ANNEXURE-C FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU DATED 30.03.2013 ANNEXURE-A AND THE ORDER OF APPELLATE COMMISSIONER DATED 09.12.2019 IN ITA.NO.94/CIT(A)-11/BANG/2013-14 ANNEXURE-B.

- 3 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43035-DB ITA No. 613 of 2022

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD)

This appeal is against the order dated 26.07.2022 in ITA No.150/Bang/2020 for the assessment year 2005-2006. The appellant has also called in question the orders dated 30.03.2013 and 09.12.2019 by the original and appellate Authorities. The appellant has proposed multiple substantial questions of law.

2.

Sri M V Seshachala, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, while inviting this Court's attention to the order dated 18.03.2025 in the present appeal, submits that the Revenue is called upon to secure the records and submit on whether

- 4 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43035-DB ITA No. 613 of 2022

the Jurisdictional Commissioner of Income Tax has accorded sanction for the reopening of the assessment. This Court must observe that this Court has also recorded in this order dated 18.03.2025 that the impugned reassessment is undertaken inarguably after a lapse of four years. The learned Senior Counsel canvasses that the outcome in this appeal must turn on whether indeed there was any sanction by the Jurisdictional Commissioner of Income Tax.

3.

Sri E I Sanmathi is heard in the light of the afore submissions formally admitting such question for due consideration. The learned counsel submits that he has secured the records, but he cannot lay his hand on the sanction accorded by the Jurisdictional Commissioner of Income Tax, and he also submits that this Court may reserve liberty to the Revenue to reopen to seek review if they can lay their hands on such sanction.

- 5 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43035-DB ITA No. 613 of 2022

4.

This Court must opine that if the reassessment is after a lapse of four years and if there is no prior sanction for such reassessment, the indisputable position must be that the reassessment cannot be sustained. As such, the appellant must succeed not only as against the Tribunal's order but all other orders viz., the order-in-original and the order-in-appeal.

5.

The next question, whether there must be liberty to seek review, is examined in the context of the Revenue's failure to place on record a copy of the prior sanction during the previous proceedings and the present proceedings with a specific opportunity being granted in this regard on 18.03.2025 and the appeal being listed on multiple occasions thereafter. These circumstances do not render the granting of liberty as now sought for. Hence, the following:

- 6 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43035-DB ITA No. 613 of 2022

ORDER

The appeal is allowed on the question framed setting aside the impugned order dated 26.07.2022 in ITA No.150/Bang/2020 and the orders dated 30.03.2013 and 09.12.2019 by the original and appellate Authorities.

Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

AN/-

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →