Karnataka High Court
Income Tax Officer vs Narayanaswamy Gangaraju on 19 February, 2026
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:10353-DB
WA No. 1368 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1368 OF 2025 (T-IT)
BETWEEN:
1. INCOME TAX OFFICER
WARD 1 NEW EXTENSION
KOLAR-563101.
2. ASSESSMENT UNIT
INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
NEW DELHI-110001.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, SR. STANDING COUNSEL)
AND:
Digitally signed by
NANJUNDACHARI NARAYANASWAMY GANGARAJU
Location: HIGH S/O NARAYANASWAMY
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
177, AMMERAHALLI VILLAGE,
MADERAHALLI POST,
KOLAR TALUK-563101
KOLAR DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO I) SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 21/03/2025 IN WP NO.5970/2025 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND II) GRANT SUCH OTHER ORDER.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:10353-DB
WA No. 1368 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) This appeal by the revenue under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated 21.03.2025 in W.P.No.5970/2025, where under, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed the notice issued by the appellant-revenue under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 solely on the ground that a minimum period of seven days was not provided to the respondent herein to respond to the notice, reserving liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.
2. Heard Sri. E.I. Sanmathi, learned Senior Standing counsel for the appellants, and perused the entire writ appeal papers.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:10353-DB WA No. 1368 of 2025 HC-KAR
3. The parties to the proceedings would be referred to as before the Writ Court. The appellants were respondents and the respondent herein was the petitioner.
4. Petitioner approached the learned Single Judge questioning, notice issued under Section 148A(b) dated 24.03.2022, mainly urging that the notice would not provide seven days' time to respond to the said notice. The learned Single Judge under the impugned order quashed the said notice, accepting the contention of the petitioner and reserving liberty to the respondent-revenue to initiate appropriate proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue, in addition to the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal submits that the time provided under Section 148A(b) is not mandatory and it is directory.
6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions urged by the appellant-revenue. -4-
NC: 2026:KHC:10353-DB WA No. 1368 of 2025 HC-KAR However, we are not in a position to accept the contention of the appellant-revenue in view of the decision of the Co- ordinate Bench dated 05.08.2025 in W.A. No.612/2025.
7. Admittedly, in the instant case, Section 148A(b) notice is dated 24.03.2022, which is placed on record as Anneuxre-A, calling upon the petitioner to reply on or before 30.03.2022. Section 148A requires providing of minimum seven days' notice to the assessee to respond to the said notice. The Co-ordinate Bench in the decision (supra), considering identical contention at paragraph No.5, has held as follows:
" 5. It is clear from the plain reading of Clause (b) of Section 148A of the Act, that a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act is required to provide an opportunity to the assessee to respond to the information which may suggests that the assessee's income has escaped assessment. The minimum period of such notice is stipulated as "not less than seven days". In the present case, the impugned notice was issued on -5- NC: 2026:KHC:10353-DB WA No. 1368 of 2025 HC-KAR 20.03.2022 and the Assessee was called upon to furnish a reply on or before 25.03.2022. Indisputably, the impugned notice did not comply with the requirement of providing a minimum period of seven days to respond to the said notice."
8. There is no reason to disagree with the above decision. Therefore, respectfully following the above decision, the present appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE BSV CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24