Case Law › High Court › Wp/2243/2023 Of S. R. Swamy (Satenhally...

Wp/2243/2023 Of S. R. Swamy (Satenhally Ramegowda Swamy) v. The Assistant Director Of Income Tax

High Court 10 Feb 2023 In favour of: Unclear

Forum / Bench

High Court · karnataka_bng_old

Parties

Date of order

10 Feb 2023

Assessment year(s)

—

Outcome

Other

Case summary

In Wp/2243/2023 Of S. R. Swamy (Satenhally Ramegowda Swamy) v. The Assistant Director Of Income Tax, the High Court (2023) decided the matter.

Decision: As such, the petition stands disposed of quashing the intimation order dated 22.07.2022 [Annexure-D] directing the respondent to enable an opportunity to the petitioner to file a response once again and then proceed in accordance with law.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

Section 143 case law →

The order — as passed by the High Court

Digitallysigned byNARASIMHAMURTHYVANAMALALocation:HIGHCOURT OFKARNATAKA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10 DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD -WRIT PETITION NO. 2243 OF 2023 (TIT) BETWEEN: S. R. SWAMY (SATENHALLY RAMEGOWDA SWAMY) S/O SRI RAMEGOWDA AGED 59 YEARS, SHOP NO.9, JAYANAGAR SHOPPING COMPLEX, 4 BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 011. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.CHANDRASHEKAR AND SRI. KASHINATH KALMATH, ADVOCATES FOR SRI.RAMA MURTHY R.,ADVOCATE) AND: THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTRE, BANGALORE-560 500. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.RAMAMURTHY.,ADVOCATE FOR SRI. DILIP.M., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE INTIMATION ORDER DATED 22.07.2022 PASSED U/S 143(1) OF ACT IN NO.CPC/2122/A3/248058481 ANNEXURE-D TO THIS WRIT PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER The petitioner is aggrieved by the intimation order dated 22.07.2022 under Section 143[1][a] of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the petitioner’s grievance is premised in the contention that though response was filed on 07.04.2022, the intimation order is issued without considering the same. Sri. R.Chandrashekar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, relies upon Annexure-C, an extract of the portal, to contend that the response was indeed filed on 07.04.2022. Sri. Dilip M., the learned counsel for the respondent, is unable to controvert but he also clarifies that the nature of response is not available from Annexure-C. It is obvious to this Court that the petitioner’s response dated 07.04.2022 is not considered, and in that event, the impugned intimation order dated 22.07.2022 will have to be revisited after giving another opportunity to the petitioner to file its response. As such, the petition stands disposed of quashing the intimation order dated 22.07.2022 [Annexure-D] directing the respondent to enable an opportunity to the petitioner to file a response once again and then proceed in accordance with law. SD/- JUDGE SA ct:sr

Facing a similar income-tax issue?

Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.

✅ Get help with an income-tax notice → 💬 Ask our CA

This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.

Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.