[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Shri.Abhishek Khemant Latthe vs The Income Tax Office on 27 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4832
WP No. 101290 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M
WRIT PETITION NO. 101290 OF 2021 (T-RES)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. ABHISHEK KHEMANT LATTHE,
AGE. 33 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. 90, C/2, MANGALWAR PETH,
TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI-590006.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SANGRAM.S.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICE,
NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTER,
DELHI-110001.
2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,
WARD 1, BELAGAVI-590001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.M.THIRUMALESH AND
Digitally signed by
PREMCHANDRA
MR
SMT. ROOPA ANAVEKAR, ADVOCATES)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN
RELIEFS.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS
UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4832
WP No. 101290 of 2021
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
Sri.Sangram S.Kulkarni., counsel for the petitioner and
Sri.M.Thirumalesh., counsel for the respondents have appeared
in person.
2. The petition is filed seeking following reliefs:
1) issue a writ of certiorari and quashed the impugned order dated
15.02.2021 vide Annexure-H passed by the respondent No.1
Income Tax Officer National e-Assessment Center, Delhi in the
interest of justice and equity.
2) Issue a writ of certiorari and quash the notice dated 01.02.2021
issued by the respondent No.1 the Income Tax Officer, National
e-Assessment Center, Delhi vide Annexure-F and notice dated
16.12.2020 issued by the respondent No.2 The Income Tax
Officer, Ward-1, Belagavi vide Annexure-E in the interest of
justice and equity.
3) Issue any other writ, order or direction to which the petitioner is
found entitled to in the present facts and grounds.
3. The petitioner, an income tax assessee and Director
of M/s. Sensegiz Technologies Private Limited (Company) have
approached this Court challenging the notices at Annexures-E, F
and H issued by the respondents under the provisions of the
Income Tax Act, 1961.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4832
HC-KAR
The basic facts leading to this petition are that the
Company had filed its income tax return for the assessment year
2014-15, declaring no income. The return was selected for
scrutiny, and after proceedings under Sections 143(2) and
142(1) of the Act, the assessment was finalised on 28.11.2016.
Dissatisfied with the assessment order, the Company filed an
appeal with the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),
Belagavi, who partially allowed the appeal and removed, the
addition related to the deemed dividend amounting to
Rs.14,49,854/-.
Subsequently, the respondents initiated proceedings
against the petitioner by issuing a notice dated 07.10.2019. The
petitioner sought reasons for reopening and thereafter
responded to further notices. The petitioner contended that there
was no new material available with the Assessing Officer to
justify reopening and that the action was based merely on a
change of opinion. The objections filed by the petitioner were
rejected by the order dated 15.02.2021.
4. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the
impugned notices are unsustainable in law as the issue relating
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4832
HC-KAR
to deemed dividend had already been considered in the
assessment proceedings and subsequently set aside by the
Commissioner (Appeals). It is further contended that the
reopening is based on a mere change of opinion, which is
impermissible under the law.
Per contra, counsel appearing for the respondents submits
that the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) clearly
indicates that the addition on account of deemed dividend is
liable to be taxed in the hands of the shareholders/directors and
not in the hands of the Company. It is contended that the
petitioner, being a recipient of such amount, is liable to be
proceeded against in his individual capacity. It is further
submitted that the present proceedings are based on a fresh
application of law to the facts emerging from the appellate order
and, therefore, do not amount to a change of opinion.
5. This Court has carefully considered the rival
submissions and perused the material on record.
A perusal of the order passed by the Commissioner
(Appeals), Belagavi, makes it clear that the addition made
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4832
HC-KAR
towards deemed dividend in the hands of the Company was
deleted on the ground that the same is liable to be assessed in
the hands of the shareholders/directors. In view of the said
finding, the initiation of proceedings against the petitioner in his
individual capacity as a recipient of the amount cannot be
construed as a mere change of opinion.
The contention of the petitioner that the notices were
issued to him in his capacity as Director of the Company is not
borne out by the record. On the contrary, the material indicates
that the proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner as
an individual recipient of the alleged deemed dividend.
In the circumstances, this Court is of the considered view
that no grounds are made out to interfere with the impugned
notices in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands rejected.
However, it is made clear that the petitioner is at liberty to
participate in the proceedings and put forth all contentions
available to him in law. The respondents shall consider the same
independently and in accordance with the law, without being
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4832
HC-KAR
influenced by any observations made while rejecting the
objections.
7. Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(JYOTI M)
JUDGE
MRP
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39
