- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45083 WP No. 27273 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 27273 OF 2023 (T-IT) BETWEEN: SRI H. S. GIRISH GUPTA, SON OF SRI LACHAIAH SETTY SATYANARAYANA GUPTA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, NO. 18, 42ND CROSS ROAD, 8TH BLOCK, JAYANAGARA, BSK 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE – 560 070 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANNAMALAI S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) 4TH FLOOR, HMT BHAVAN, NO. 59, BELLARY ROAD BANGALORE – 560 032 2. THE ASSISTANT/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE -2 (1), HMT BHAVAN, NO. 59, BELLARY ROAD BANGALORE – 560 032 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE SANCTION ORDER UNDER SEC. 279(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 BEARING NO. 45-M-48/2022-23 DIN NO. 18/KAR/31032023/432951 DTD 31/03/2023 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 ENCLOSED AND REFERRED AS ANNEXURE-A IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER CONCERNED. Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45083 WP No. 27273 of 2023 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:- “a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the sanction order under section 279(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 bearing no.45-M-48/2022-23 DIN No.18/KAR/31032023/432951 dated 31.03.2023 passed by the respondent No.1 enclosed and referred as Annexure-A in respect of the petitioner concerned. b) pass any order/s as deems fit to this Hon’ble court in the interest of justice.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that on 13.10.2017, respondent No.1 issued notice to the petitioner followed by show-cause notice dated 31.03.2018 for the purpose of initiating proceedings under Section 279 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the I.T. Act”), the petitioner submitted reply dated 06.08.2018 to respondent No.1 as well as letter dated 31.01.2019 to respondent No.1, specifically contending that the petitioner was - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45083 WP No. 27273 of 2023 not a Director of the Company, M/s. Mantri Habitats Pvt. Ltd., and as such, the question of petitioner being prosecuted would not arise. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the petitioner is not a Director or Principal Officer of the Company and the petitioner had submitted a reply, respondent No.1 has proceeded to pass the impugned sanction order under Section 279(1) of the I.T. Act, dated 31.03.2023, which is assailed in the present petition. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner 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 having referred to the notice issued by respondent No.1, respondent No.1 has not considered the reply submitted by the petitioner and has come to the conclusion that no such reply was filed by the petitioner, which is contrary to the material on record. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that in order to provide one more opportunity and to file additional reply, by adopting a justice oriented approach, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of the petition by setting aside the impugned - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45083 WP No. 27273 of 2023 order and by remitting the matter back to respondent No.1 for reconsideration afresh, in accordance with law. 6. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned sanction order at Annexure-A dated 31.03.2023 passed by respondent No.1, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, is hereby quashed. (iii) The matter is remitted back to respondent No.1 for reconsideration of the matter afresh, in accordance with law. (iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit pleadings, documents, additional documents etc., before respondent No.1, who shall consider the same, provide sufficient opportunity and proceed further, in accordance with law. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE BMC: List No.: 2 Sl No.: 68