- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16834 WP No. 12326 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 12326 OF 2025 (T-IT) BETWEEN: HASANAMBA FUEL PARK A PARTNERSHIP-FIRM, 158 A, SANTHEPET, B.M. ROAD, HASSAN – 574 201 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER H.M. GIRIDHAR, AGED 48 YEARS, …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K. M. SHIVAYOGISWAMY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (NAFAC), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI – 110 0012 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 & TPS, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, 2ND STAGE, BELUR ROAD, HASSAN – 573 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. THIRUMALESH & SRI. M. DILIP, ADVOCATES FOR R1 & R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED EXPARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEARING DIN AND ORDER NO. Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16834 WP No. 12326 of 2025 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1069764432(1) DATED 18.10.2024 PASSED UNDER SECTION 250 R.W.S 254 OF INCOME TAX ACT IN RELATION TO THE AY 2014-15 VIDE ANNEXURE-J. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “a) Issue Writ of Certiorari or directions in the nature of Certiorari to quash the impugned exparte order passed by the 1st respondent bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1069764432(1) dated 18.10.2024 passed under section 250 r.w.s. 254 of Income Tax Act in relation to the AY: 2014-15 vide Annexure-“J”. b) Issue such other writ or orders as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in the earlier round of litigation in W.P.No.3246/2022 dated 16.02.2022 (Annexure-D), this Court passed the following order: “The petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the first respondent authority to dispose - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16834 WP No. 12326 of 2025 off the appeal filed by the petitioner against the impugned assessment order for the assessment year 2014-15 vide Appeal No.ITA149/CIT(A)/Mys/2018-19. Further relief is sought seeking for appropriate directions to the second respondent to keep in abeyance the recovery notice at Annexure-'D' till disposal of the appeal. 2. After hearing the matter for sometime, the learned counsel for petitioner has filed a memo and submits that a sum of Rs.2,75,000/- has already been deposited before the respondent authorities. 3. Taking note of the Circular dated 31.07.2017 vide O.M.No.404/72/93-ITCC there would be stay of the impugned order till disposal of the appeal subject to the petitioner depositing 20% of the disputed demand in terms of Circular No.O.M.No.404/72/93-ITCC. The amount paid by the petitioner as is mentioned in the memo to be taken note of while calculating 20% of the disputed demand. The appeal to be taken up as per seniority. The petitioner is granted four weeks time for making appropriate deposit of 20% as ordered above. 4. The petition is disposed off in light of the above observations.” 4. In pursuance of the same, it is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner could not appear before the Appellate Authority due to demise of his Chartered Accountant and prosecute - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16834 WP No. 12326 of 2025 the appeal on merits. As a result of which the appellate authority proceeded to pass the impugned order at Annexure-J dated 18.10.2024, dismissing the appeal, which is assailed in the present petition. It is submitted that the inability and omission on the part of the petitioner to prosecute the appeal was due to bonafide reasons, sufficient cause and unavoidable circumstances and if one more opportunity is given and the matter is remitted back to the concerned respondent, the petitioner would contest the appeal. 5. 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. 6. A perusal of the material on record, in particular, the impugned order will indicate that the Appellate Authority has noticed that the petitioner did not appear on various occasion and has not prosecuted the appeal. However, in the light of the demise of the petitioner’s Chartered Accountant as evidence by the death certificate at Annexure-H dated 21.05.2024, by adopting a justice oriented approach, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the concerned - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16834 WP No. 12326 of 2025 respondent, in order to provide one more opportunity to the petitioner. 7. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is allowed. ii) The impugned order at Annexure-J dated 18.10.2024 passed by respondent No.1, is hereby set aside. iii) The matter is remitted to respondent No.1- the Appellate Authority for reconsideration afresh, in accordance with law. iv) Respondent No.1-the Appellate Authority shall reconsider the matter afresh including additional pleadings, documents etc., submitted by the petitioner and proceed further in accordance with law. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE BMC List No.: 2 Sl No.: 55