- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25990 WP No. 11598 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 11598 OF 2026 (T-IT) BETWEEN: AYUB AHMED MOHAMMED 357, 1ST MAIN, 3RD CROSS 1ST BLOCK, R.T. NAGAT, KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560032. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MALLAHA RAO K, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU - 4, 5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU 560 095. 2. OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DC/ACIT CIRCLE 6(1)(1), 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 095. Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25990 WP No. 11598 of 2026 3. THE NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT ROOM NO-245A, NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI - 110 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.M. DILIP., ADVOCATE A/W SRI. VINAYAK S PANDIT., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING IMPUGNED NOTICE AND ORDER UNDER SECTION 148A(D) VIDE NO. ITBA / AST/F/148A/2024-25 /1068012183(1) DATED 27.08.2024 FOR THE PERIOD 2018-19 AS ANNEXURE-C AND C1 ITBA/AST/S/148-1/2024-25/1068015050(1) PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND IMPUGNED EX-PARTE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 147 R.W.S 144B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND ACCORDINGLY ISSUED DEMAND NOTICE VIDE ITBA/AST/S/147/2025-26/1085995709(1) DATED 13.02.2026 FOR THE PERIOD 2018-19. AS ANNEXURE-E AND E1 ITBA/AST/S/156/2025-26/1085995897(1) PASSED BY 3RD RESPONDENT; (II) ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR WRIT OF DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO CONSIDER THE RETURNS FILED AND MAINTAINED BOOKS OF THE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25990 WP No. 11598 of 2026 ACCOUNTS OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19; (III) ISSUE WRIT OF PROHIBITION, NOT TO PROCEED FURTHER STEPS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO REFRAIN FROM FURTHER COERCIVE STEPS AGAINST IMPUGNED NOTICE AND ORDER UNDER SECTION 148A(D) VIDE NO. ITBA / AST/F/148A/2024-25/1068012183(1) DATED 27.08.2024 FOR THE PERIOD 2018-19 AS ANNEXURE-C AND C1 ITBA/AST/S/148-1/2024-25/1068015050(1) PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND IMPUGNED EX-PARTE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 147 READ WITH SECTION 144B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND ACCORDINGLY ISSUED DEMAND NOTICE DATED 13.02.2026 FOR THE PERIOD 2018-19 ITBA/AST/S/147/2025-26/1085995709(1) AS ANNEXURE-E AND E1 ITBA/AST/S/156/2025-26/1085995897(1) PASSED BY 3RD RESPONDENT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25990 WP No. 11598 of 2026 ORAL ORDER The petitioner has called in question not just the Assessment Order under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short, 'the Act'] dated 13.02.2026 [Annexure-E] and the consequential Demand Notice dated 13.02.2026 [Annexure-E1] but also the Notice dated 27.08.2024 under Section 148 of the Act [Annexure-C1]. The proceedings relate to the assessment year 2018-19, and the petitioner has called in question the afore Order and Notices on the ground that the petitioner who has had multiple property transactions, has not filed his Income Tax Returns. 2. Sri Mallaha Rao K, the learned counsel for the petitioner though proposes to canvass some grounds to contend why there should not have been an ex parte Assessment Order, submits that the petitioner's grievance would be addressed if this Court interferes with the impugned Assessment Order and restores the proceedings under the Notice dated 27.08.2024 under Section 148 of the Act for - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25990 WP No. 11598 of 2026 reconsideration with liberty to the petitioner to file a reply, and in elaboration, the learned counsel submits that the assessment proceedings are concluded only on the grounds that the petitioner has not filed Income Tax Returns for the relevant year and has not responded to the Show Cause Notice, but as could be seen from Annexure-A, the Returns have been filed two years prior to the date of the Assessment Order. The learned counsel also proposes to contend that the petitioner will be entitled to statutory exceptions. 3. Sri M Dilip and Sri Vinayak S Pandit, the learned Standing Counsels for the respondents who are called upon to accept notice, are heard for the disposal of the petition and they assert that the petitioner cannot take any exception with the Assessing Officer's finding that Returns are not filed because the petitioner has not filed the returns within thirty days from the date of service of Notice under Section 148 of the Act. 4. These circumstances are considered for a final decision. The computation of the income in the impugned - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25990 WP No. 11598 of 2026 Assessment Order is premised on the ground that the petitioner has not filed Returns for the relevant assessment year, but without considering the Returns filed earlier. The Assessing Officer must justify why the Returns should not be considered if all the details are filed and if there is a cause to justify the delay. These must be examined for a complete adjudication as must be the petitioner's case that he is entitled to some statutory exception. As such, this Court is of the view that the proceedings must be restored for consideration with liberty to the petitioner to file a reply to the notice under Section 148A[b] of the Act dated 07.08.2024. In the light of the afore, the following: ORDER [a] The petition is allowed in part quashing the Notice dated 27.08.2024 under Section 148 of the Act [Annexure-C1] and the Assessment Order dated 13.02.2026 [Annexure-E] and the consequential Demand Notice [Annexure-E1] restoring the proceedings to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer with - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25990 WP No. 11598 of 2026 liberty to the petitioner to file response to the Notice under Section 148A[b] of the Act. [b] The petitioner is reserved with liberty to file his Reply by 29.06.2026. It is needless to observe that all questions are left open but with the observation that there must be a comprehensive consideration. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE AN/-