- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41790 WP No. 24611 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 24611 OF 2025 (T-IT) BETWEEN: YASHASWINI GRUHA NIRMANA SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITHA REGISTERED U/S 8 OF THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1959, NO.43, H D DEVEGOWDA CIRCLE, BANNUR ROAD, 1ST CROSS, NEAR RING ROAD, MYSORE – 570 012 PAN: AAAAY2408F REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO, SRIKANTH M., AGED 60 YEARS, S/O MADAPPA NANJAIAH, NO.2675, 4TH CROSS, KALIDASA ROAD, V V MOHALLA, MYSORE – 570 010 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVI SHANKAR S. V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, WARD 2(4), MYSORE – 570 010 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, WARD - 1, MYSORE – 570 008. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ARAVIND V. CHAVAN, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED U/S 201(1) AND 201(1A) DATED 26/03/2021 BEARING DIN. ITBA/COM/F/17/2020-21/1031797645(1) PASSED BY THE Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41790 WP No. 24611 of 2025 RESPONDENT NO.2 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 HEREIN MARKED AS ANNEXURE – A AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs: “i) Issue a writ or Certiorari or direction in the nature of a writ of certiorari quashing the order passed U/s 201(1) & 201(1A) dated 26.03.2021 bearing DIN: ITBA/COM/F/17/2020-21/1031797645(1) passed by the Respondent No.2 for the assessment year 2013- 14 herein marked as Annexure – A. ii) Issue a writ of Certiorari or direction in the nature of a writ of certiorari quashing the demand notice dated 26.03.2021 issued u/s 156 of the Act with a wrong format of DIN by the Respondent No.2 for the assessment year 2013-14 herein marked as Annexure – A1. iii) Issue a writ of Mandamus or direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent No.1 to summon the recipients in Annexure – L, and secure the manner of treatment of the advances in the books of the recipients. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41790 WP No. 24611 of 2025 iv) And pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper 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. 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 pursuant to notices dated 25.11.2020, 28.12.2020, 28.12.2020 and 09.02.2021 issued by the respondent No.2 under Section 201 and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘IT Act’), the erstwhile vice president of the petitioner-Society through a phone call informed the respondents that all the members and the Directors of the said Society had resigned and the same has now been superseded by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies and so also, all the relevant documents had already been filed with the Department during the course of hearing on 20.03.2020. Subsequently, respondent No.2 proceeded to pass the impugned Order under Section 201 of the Income Tax Act. It is submitted that the respondent No.2 without considering the documents submitted by - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41790 WP No. 24611 of 2025 the petitioner and the fact that the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies had superseded over the petitioner-Society, has proceeded to pass the impugned order, which is violative of the principles of natural justice and the same is liable to be set aside directing the respondent No.2 to pass fresh orders after considering the documents filed by the petitioner in accordance with law. 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 reply along with documents during the course of hearing on 20.03.2020 as can be seen from the paragraph No.3 of the impugned order dated 26.03.2021, which reads as under: “3. In response to the above, the erstwhile vice president Sri.G.Prashant informed over phone that the Society is superseded now by the Deputy Registrar of Co- operative Society office. All the directors and members are resigned from the post. Further, the details of income tax documents pertaining to the period 2012-13 and 2013-14 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41790 WP No. 24611 of 2025 with respect to payment of TDS and statements have already been filed with Income Tax Department during the course of hearing on 20.03.2020. As on date, the Society is superseded by the Government of Karnataka (Represented by Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Society).” 6. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the petitioner filed documents during the course of hearing on 20.03.2020. It is also borne out from the impugned order dated 26.03.2021 that the respondent No.2 has not considered the documents filed by the petitioner and has proceeded to pass the impugned order. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned notices, proceedings culminating in the impugned penalty order is violative of principles of natural justice and consequently, the impugned order deserves to be set aside by adopting justice oriented approach and by directing the respondent No.2 for reconsideration afresh and to proceed further in accordance with law. 7. In the result, pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby allowed. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41790 WP No. 24611 of 2025 (ii) The impugned order at Annexure – A dated 26.03.2022 passed by respondent No.2 and the impugned demand notice at Annexure- A1 dated 26.03.2021 are hereby set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted back to respondent No.2 for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law in accordance with law from the stage of considering the documents filed by the petitioner. (iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit additional pleadings, documents, etc., to the respondent, who shall consider the same and proceed further in accordance with law. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MDS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 0