- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14232 WP No. 4699 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 4699 OF 2026 (T-IT) BETWEEN: 1. SABEER HUSAIN JOHURA, S/O. F.NAVAB SA MUBARAK, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, MANJIL, KOBRIPAT, HOSADURGA P.O., CHITRADURGA - 577 527. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. R. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE AND SRI. KASHINATH KALMATH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAMA MURTHY R, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DELHI - 110 001. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, TAMATKAL ROAD, MEDEHALLY, CHITRADURGA - 577 502. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M DILIP, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14232 WP No. 4699 of 2026 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A. QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 22-03-2024 MADE U/S 148A(d) OF THE ACT, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18 (ANNEXURE-B) (ITBA/AST/F/148A/2023-24/1063192594 (1)] BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER The petitioner has called in question the validity of the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") at Annexure-B. The petitioner has also sought for setting aside of the notice under Section 148 of the Act, as well as the ex-parte order of assessment at Annexure-D. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, insofar as the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act dated 23.01.2024, the petitioner has not made out any reply. It is further submitted that the order is passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act taking note that the petitioner had not made out any response and thereafter, a notice under Section 148 of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14232 WP No. 4699 of 2026 the Act was issued and further proceedings have culminated in the order of assessment. 3. It is also noticed that the order of assessment is an ex-parte order passed with absence of participation of the petitioner. The petitioner would submit that the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act is on the premise that cash deposits and withdrawals were made. It is further submitted that insofar as withdrawals, which ipso facto cannot be termed as escapement of income and necessary explanation would be demonstrated. 4. It is further submitted that proceedings under Section 148A(b) of the Act also have a threshold of Rs.50,00,000/- to issue notice beyond a period of three years. The petitioner submits that the necessary stand would be taken if the matter is remitted to the stage of furnishing a reply under Section 148A(b). Taking note that in the consequential proceedings, the assessment order is also ex-parte, and considering the contention of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14232 WP No. 4699 of 2026 petitioner, it would meet the ends of justice by setting aside the orders at Annexures - B, C and D and remitting the matter to the stage of reply to the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act. 5. In light of the contention that the petitioner did not receive the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act, the authorities may furnish a copy of the said notice within ten days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. Thereupon, the matter to be proceeded from the stage of reply to the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act. All contentions are kept open. 6. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. SD/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE SHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11