Wp/9758/2023 Of Smt. Govindaswamy Hemalatha Sateesh Kumar v. Income Tax Officer
High Court
01 Jun 2023 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · karnataka_bng_old
Parties
Wp/9758/2023 Of Smt. Govindaswamy Hemalatha Sateesh Kumar v. Income Tax Officer
Date of order
01 Jun 2023
Assessment year(s)
2016-17
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Wp/9758/2023 Of Smt. Govindaswamy Hemalatha Sateesh Kumar v. Income Tax Officer, the High Court (2023) decided the matter.
Decision: Accordingly, petition is disposed of.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1 DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV -WRIT PETITION NO. 9758 OF 2023 (TIT)BETWEEN:
(BY SRI. M.DILIP, ADVOCATE)
…RESPONDENT
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA CALLING FOR THE RECORDS OF THE PETITIONERS CASE AND AFTER EXAMINING THE LEGALITY AND VALIDITY THEREOF BE PLEASED TO QUASH AND SET ASIDE IMPUGNED ORDER UNDER SEC 148A(d) OF THE ACT DTD 28/02/2023 IN DIN AND NOTICE NO. ITBA/AST/F/148A/2022-23/1050200557(1) (ANNEXURE-B) AND NOTICE DTD 07/03/2023 ISSUED UNDER SEC 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT HAVING DIN AND NOTICE NO. ITBA/AST/S/148-1/2022-23/1050475816(1) (ANNEXURE-C) FOR THE AY 2016-17 ISSUED BY THE SOLE RESPONDENT AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking for setting aside of the order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the I.T.Act') dated 28.02.2023 at Annexure-B and the Notice under Section 148 of the I.T.Act dated 07.03.2023 at Annexure-C. The principal contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a non-filer of returns as is ascertained in the averment at paragraph No.1 of the petition. It is further submitted that despite assertion to
the contrary by the Revenue, no Notice under Section 148A(b) of the I.T.Act was served on the petitioner and in the absence of which, the authorities have proceeded to pass an order under Section 148A(d) of the I.T.Act and have issued notice under Section 148 of the I.T.Act. It is submitted that there was no opportunity for the petitioner to make out a reply to the 148A(b) notice and accordingly, all proceedings there upon being in violation of principles of natural justice ought to be set aside.
2. Sri. Dilip M, learned counsel upon instructions, submits that the petitioner may be granted another opportunity to reply to the 148A(b) notice and proceedings be permitted thereafter.
3. In the light of the said submission made on behalf of the Revenue, the impugned order dated 28.02.2023 under Section 148A(d) of the I.T.Act at Annexure-B as well as the Notice under Section 148 of the I.T.Act at Annexure-C are set aside. The matter is remitted for fresh consideration from the stage post
148A(b) notice. Petitioner to file her reply to the 148A(b) notice within a period of three [3] weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Department is at liberty to proceed thereafter in accordance with law.
Accordingly, petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE
RB
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.