REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT 1956 v. KORAMANGALA

12, 12/1, FIRST FLOOR, KASTURBA ROAD BENGALURU-560 015 (REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MRS. THALAGAVARA SEETHARAM ANITHA KUMARASWAMY, D/O MR. THALAGAVARA CHANNAPPA SEETHARAM AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS) REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT 1956 … PETITIONER (BY SRI. NARENDRA KUMAR J. JAIN., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND:

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL PROCESSING UNIT (CPC) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT BENGALURU-560 500

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(2)(1) BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560 095 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ARAVIND V. CHAVAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI E.I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:9860 WP No. 2027 of 2026 HC-KAR THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH AS FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED BY AN APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR OTHERWISE THE IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE CPC/2425/G5E/5540731713 00924 DATED 18.12.2025 ISSUED BY THE LEARNED FIRST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 139(9) FOR AY 2024-25, ENCLOSED IN ANNEXURE-E AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER Sri. Aravind Chavan, learned counsel accepts notice for respondent No.1. Sri. E. I. Sanmathi, learned counsel accepts notice for respondent No.2.

2. Petitioner has sought for setting aside of the order at Annexure-E and has also sought for a direction to the respondents consequent to setting aside of the order at Annexure-E to process the income tax returns of the petitioner for the assessment year 2024-2025.

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is aggrieved by the order invalidating the return in terms - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:9860 WP No. 2027 of 2026 HC-KAR of Annexure-E with the observation that taxpayer has offered gross receipt or income under the head "Profits and Gains of Business or Profession" more than Rs.10 crores, while books of account are not audited under Section 44AB of Income Tax Act.

It is the case of the petitioner that the turnover of the petitioner cannot be construed to be above Rs.10 crores in light of part of income of the petitioner being exempt as such income of the petitioner is constituted of sale of assets which cannot be construed to be turnover. It is submitted that petitioner has material to demonstrate such contention and assertion, which would eventually lead to his income being construed to be less than Rs.10 crores.

Sri. E. I. Sanmathi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 would submit that the communication at Annexure-E is computer generated from the Centralized Processing Center and the Court, taking note of the stand - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:9860 WP No. 2027 of 2026 HC-KAR of the petitioner, may direct respondent No. 2 to hear the petitioner and forward appropriate report thereafter to respondent No.1.

In light of the said stand and taking note of the contention of the petitioner, the order at Annexure-E invalidating the return of income of petitioner is set aside. The matter is remitted to respondent No. 2.

Petitioner to appear before respondent No. 2 without further notice on 16.03.2026. Petitioner then to demonstrate that the turnover of the petitioner is less than Rs.10 crores and question of audit under Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act would not apply. Consequential to such explanation, respondent No.2 may take note of the contentions and forward the report to respondent No.1, with its opinion.