[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
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.
NC: 2026:KHC:10353-DB
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.
NC: 2026:KHC:10353-DB
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
NC: 2026:KHC:10353-DB
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
