Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 51578 (KAR)

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER v. PANJOS BUILDERS P LTD

WA/582/2024 · 2025-12-02

B M Shyam Prasad, T M Nadaf

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50216-DB WA No. 582 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO. 582 OF 2024 (T-IT) BETWEEN: 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 5(1)(1), BMTC BUILDING, BANGALORE-560095. 2. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OF INCOME TAX, C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. 3. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL/ JOINT.DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ROOM NO.401, 2ND FLOOR, E-RAMP, Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50216-DB WA No. 582 of 2024 JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, DELHI-110003. &APPELLANTS (BY SRI. E I SANMATHI, ADVOCATE) AND: PANJOS BUILDERS P LTD 1ST FLOOR, CONTRACT HOUSE, N A L WIND TUNNEL ROAD, MURUGESHPALYA, BANGALORE-560017 REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, SIR JOSE MANI, ALSO AT SRI JOSE MANI, S/O LATE K I MANI, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT 2284, 14TH A MAIN, HAL 2ND STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE-560008. &RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAVI SHANKAR S V.,ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO 1) TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 08.01.2024 IN WRIT PETITION No. 23572 OF 2023 (T-IT) PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50216-DB WA No. 582 of 2024 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, 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 intra Court appeal is as against the writ Court's order dated 08.01.2024 in the writ petition in WP No.23572/2023, and the writ Court has allowed the respondent's petition quashing the Notice under Section 148A[b] of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short, 'the IT Act'] and consequentially quashing the subsequent notices/orders. The writ Court has reserved liberty to the appellants to initiate proceedings subject to all just exceptions in law. The notice under Section 148A[b] of the IT Act is dated 21.03.2022, and the respondent is called upon to submit a response/reply by 27.03.2022. The writ Court has interfered with the Notice dated 21.03.2022 because it is contrary to the provisions of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50216-DB WA No. 582 of 2024 Section 148A[b] of the IT Act, which stipulates a notice period of not less than seven days, and that the Notice is not signed. Sri Ravishankar S V, the learned counsel for the respondent, submits that this Court may dispose of the writ appeal considering the merits of the respondent's case on a defective notice which is accepted by the writ Court, and in support of his submission, the learned counsel places on record a copy of the order dated 05.08.2025 in the Writ Appeal in W.A. No.612/2025. Sri E I Sanmathi, the learned counsel for the appellants-revenue is heard and the conclusion by a co-ordinate Bench in the writ appeal in W.A. No. 612/2025 is perused. On the same aspect, the Co-ordinate Bench has observed thus: "5. It is clear from the plain reading of Clause (b) of Section 148A of the Act, that a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act is required to provide an opportunity to the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50216-DB WA No. 582 of 2024 assessee to respond to the information which may suggests that the assessee9s income has escaped assessment. The minimum period of such notice is stipulated as "not less than seven days". In the present case, the impugned notice was issued on 20.03.2022 and the Assessee was called upon to furnish a reply on or before 25.03.2022. Indisputably, the impugned notice did not comply with the requirement of providing a minimum period of seven days to respond to the said notice. 6. The impugned notice is contrary to law as rightly pointed out by the learned Single Judge." The writ appeal is dismissed holding that this Court is persuaded to dispose of the writ appeal for reasons of parity as aforesaid. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE AN/-