MR V S YALVIGI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that a mistake in mentioning the correct assessment year in a notice under Section 148 is not a curable defect and strikes at the jurisdiction of the authority. Consequently, the notice with the incorrect assessment year was quashed.
What were the facts?
The petitioners challenged a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2008-09. The Revenue later dropped proceedings related to the first notice and admitted a mistake in the assessment year of the second notice.
What were the issues?
Whether a mistake in mentioning the assessment year in a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act renders the notice invalid and without jurisdiction.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 148,Section 147,Section 29(b)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
- -
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF APRIL 2013 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO.11778/2012 (T-IT)
BETWEEN:
MR.V.S.YALVIGI S/O MR.SUBHARAO VENKATARAO YALVIGI SINCE DECEASED BY LR’S
1 MR.SUNILKUMAR V.YALVIGI S/O LARE MR.V.S.YALVIGI AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.253, RAMANASHREE NAGAR SOS POST BANNERGHATTA ROAD BANGALORE-560 076.
2 MR.SATHYABODHA V.YALVIGI S/O LATE MR.V.S.YALVIGI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.253, RAMANASHREE NAGAR SOS POST BANNERGHATTA ROAD BANGALORE-560 076.
3 MRS.LAKSHMI SHRIKRISHNA KULKARNI AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.239, RAMANASHREE NAGAR
- -
2 SOS POST BANNERGHATTA ROAD BANGALORE-560 076.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI K.P.KUMAR, SENIOR ADV., FOR SRI T.SURYANARAYANA, ADV.,)
AND:
1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 10(1), UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE, MISSION ROAD BANGALORE-560 027.
2 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 15(1), HMT BHAVAN BELLARY ROAD BANGALORE-560 032. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADV., FOR R1 NOTICE NOT ORDERED IN R/O R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE IMPUGNED NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT U/S 148 OF THE ACT AS OPPOSED TO THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED THE SAID SECTION BESIDES BEING WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 28.11.2011 VIDE ANNEXURE-G ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT U/S 148 R/W SECTION 147 OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This writ petition deserves to be allowed for the following two reasons:
- -
3 (a) According to the learned counsel for the respondent Revenue, the notice dated 28.11.2011, Annexure-G, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for short ‘Act’, impugned in the petition, proceedings are dropped pursuant thereto vide order dated 4.12.2012 of the Income Tax Officer, Ward 10(1), Bangalore, enclosed to the memo dated 18.4.2013.
(b) That the notice dated 29.11.2012, Annexure-L, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, recording the assessment year as 2008-09, which according to the learned counsel for the respondent Revenue, ought to have been for the assessment year 2009-10 and if that is so, learned counsel are unanimous over the law laid down while interpreting Section 29(b) of the Act that a mistake in mentioning the correct assessment year would strike at the jurisdiction of the authority invoking Section 148 of the Act and therefore, not a curable defect. Hence, that notice Annexure-L must stand quashed.
- -
4 2. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. It is declared that in view of withdrawing the notice, Annexure–‘G’, all proceedings pursuant thereto stand withdrawn and the notice dated 29.11.2012, Annexure– L, is quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE
More judgments on Section 148
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026