- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29341 WP No. 16441 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 16441 OF 2026 (T-IT) BETWEEN: SHRIKANT HARIRAM DEOKAR S/O HARIRAM NIVARTHI DEOKAR, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 33, 34 AND 35, SHRI SIDDANATH NIWAS, 1ST FLOOR, SANJEEV NAIK LANE, AVENUE ROAD CROSS, CUBBON PET, BANGALORE 560002. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. A MAHESH CHOWDHARY., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD5(2)(2), BANGALORE BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU 560095. 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARED 5(2)(1), BANGALORE BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE, KORAMANGALA, Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29341 WP No. 16441 of 2026 BENGALURU 560095. 3. THE ADDL.JOINT/DEPUTY/ ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, ROOM NO.401,2ND FLOOR, E-RAMP, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, NEW DELHI-110003. THROUGH THE PRL.CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.M. THIRUMALLESH., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) QUASHING AND SETTING ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 16.12.2019 BEARING NO. ITBA/AST/S/144/2019-20/1022421719(1) PASSED UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 BY RESPONDENT NO.1, PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A; B) QUASHING AND SETTING ASIDE THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 16.12.2019 BEARING NO. ITBA/AST/S/156/2019-20/1022422041(1) ISSUED UNDER SECTION 156 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 BY RESPONDENT NO.1, PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A1; C) QUASHING AND SETTING ASIDE THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 23.11.2021 BEARING NO. ITBA/PNL/S/156/2021-22/1037162306(1) ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3, PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-B AND ETC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29341 WP No. 16441 of 2026 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner is aggrieved by the Assessment Order dated 16.12.2019 which is for the assessment year 2017-18 [Annexure-A]. The petitioner has also called in question the Demand Notices and Penalty Orders which are consequent to the Assessment Order. These Demand Notices and Penalty Orders are either in 2019 or in 2021. The petitioner asserts that he was not in the know of this order or the subsequent proceedings until he received an email on 28.05.2026. 2. The assessment proceedings are because of cash deposits ‘during the period of demonetization’, and the proceedings are in the premise that there is no response from the petitioner though all notices are duly served. The Assessment Order compiles the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29341 WP No. 16441 of 2026 details of the notices issued between August 2018 and December 2019. This compilation records that the respective notices have been delivered to the petitioner's E-mail. The petitioner contends that the E- mail account was furnished originally for compliance, but over the years the petitioner has not used this account, and the petitioner is categorical in stating that the non-participation in the assessment and the penalty proceedings is because he is not in receipt of the hard copies of the notices and that his non- participation is not deliberate. 3. Sri Shashikiran Shetty, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, on 09.06.2026 presented the following question for consideration. “Whether this Court must intervene and restore the proceedings with liberty to the petitioner to file a response to the Show Cause Notice enabling a fresh assessment.” - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29341 WP No. 16441 of 2026 This Court has called upon Sri. M. Thirumalesh, the learned standing counsel for the respondents, to secure instructions. 4. Sri M. Thirumalesh argues that this Court may not interfere on the ground that the petitioner has not been served with the notices over E-mail because the petitioner does not contest that the notices are addressed to his E-mail with Sri Shashikiran Shetty stating that this Court must consider that the service of notices through E-mail were made compulsory only in the year 2022 and that if the petitioner was unable to follow up on the delivery of notice to the E-mail account, the bona fides must be accepted. The learned Senior Counsel also submits that if the petitioner is offered even four weeks’ time, all documents such as Books of Account, Bank Statements, Cash Flow Records and Business Records would be filed to show cause against the assessment as is now concluded. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29341 WP No. 16441 of 2026 5. Sri M. Thirumalesh also submits that this Court may consider that this Court is intervening after a lapse of five years from the date of the impugned order and that other demands are outstanding from the petitioner. In response, Sri Shashikiran Shetty submits that the petitioner has filed an application for rectification insofar as the demands relating to the subsequent assessment year because it is an ex parte assessment and the petitioner can produce documents to justify that there should be no addition in the subject assessment year [2017-18] because of cash deposits. 6. This Court is of the view that the petitioner must have an opportunity to show cause against the assessment in the light of these factors viz., [a] the Assessment Order is for the year 2019, [b] the demand is not raised simultaneously and the Penalty Orders and the subsequent Demand Notices are two years later, [c] the petitioner’s case is that he was not aware - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29341 WP No. 16441 of 2026 of the proceedings except the proceedings mentioned in the E-mail sent in the month of May 2026, and [d] the proceedings have not been taken to its culmination over years. This Court opines that the petitioner must have an opportunity notwithstanding the petitioner’s contentions about the service of notice by E-mail being made mandatory only in the year 2022. 7. As such, the petitioner is extended an opportunity to participate in the assessment proceedings with liberty to file documents calling upon the third respondent to make a necessary enablement on the portal to provide the opportunity to upload documents. It cannot be gainsaid that if the petitioner could avail an appellate remedy, a deposit would have been in the fitness of things, and therefore, this Court is of the view that the petitioner must deposit 20% of the tax in demand being entitled to automatic refund if cause is shown and the proceedings do not - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29341 WP No. 16441 of 2026 culminate in reassessment. In the light of the afore, the following: ORDER [A] The petition is allowed-in-part. The impugned Assessment Order, the Demand Notices/Penalty Orders [Annexures-A to E] and the other consequential Penalty Orders are quashed restoring the proceedings with liberty to the petitioner to file reply and documents to the last Show Cause Notice. [B] The third respondent, upon receipt of a copy of this order, shall enable the petitioner to upload the response and the documents on the portal. [C] The petitioner within six [6] weeks from today shall deposit 20% of the tax in demand in wterms of Annexure-A subject to being - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29341 WP No. 16441 of 2026 entitled to refund in the portal on the outcome in the restored proceedings. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SA List No.: 3 Sl No.: 13