- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13795 WP No. 12661 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 12661 OF 2021 (T-RES) BETWEEN: KARISHMA PARADISE AND HILL COUNTRY, NO. 46/1, TURUHALLI VILLAGE, SUBRAMANPURA POST, UTTARAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 061. REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI. T.D. SURESH …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.V. SESHACHALA, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. G.S.NAGHARISH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ASSESSING OFFICER INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL E ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NO. 412-413, 1ST FLOOR, OPP. METRO PILLAR NO. 793 DWARKA MOR, NEW DELHI – 110 059. 2. THE JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER, ASST. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, WARD-4(1)(1), BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU – 560 095. 3. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU – 560 095. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI AND SRI. M. DILIP, ADVOCATES) Digitally signed by NANDINI D Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13795 WP No. 12661 of 2021 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 22.04.2021 BEARING NO.ITBA/AST/S/143(3)2021-22/1032611107(1) PASSED BY 1ST RESPONDENT PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE –N. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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. Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the assessment order dated 22.04.2021 bearing No.ITBA /AST/S/143(3)2021-22/1032611107(1) passed by first respondent produced as Annexure-J. b. Issue such other writ or direction as this Hon’ble Court deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the present case.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the memorandum of petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, though the petitioner had replied/responded to the notices issued by respondent No.1 under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13795 WP No. 12661 of 2021 (for short, ‘IT Act’), dated 23.09.2019, 08.12.2020, 26.01.2021 and 04.03.2021 along with supporting documents, the respondents have not considered the said reply/response and proceeded to pass exparte assessment order dated 22.04.2021 under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the IT Act. Therefore, the petitioner may be permitted to reply to the said notice once again by setting aside the impugned order and notices passed/issued consequent to the notice dated 23.09.2019 issued under Section 142(1) of the IT Act. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that it is an undisputed fact that petitioner has submitted his reply/response along with documents to the notice issued under Section 142(1) of the IT Act and respondent No.1 has not considered the reply filed by the petitioner. Under these circumstances, by adopting a justice oriented approach and in order to provide one more opportunity to the petitioner to give his reply to the notice issued under Section 142(1) of the IT Act, I deem it just and appropriate to set-aside the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13795 WP No. 12661 of 2021 impugned order/notice issued consequent to the notice issued under Section 142(1) of the IT Act and remit the matter back to the respondents for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. 6. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: O R D E R (i) The petition is hereby allowed; (ii) Impugned Assessment Order dated 22.04.2021 at Annexure-J passed by respondent No.1 is 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 notice under Section 142(1) of the IT Act at Annexure–D dated 23.09.2019. (iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit additional pleadings, documents, etc., to the respondent No.1, who shall consider the same and proceed further in accordance with law. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MDS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53