(BY SRI. RAVI SHANKAR S.V, ADVOCATE) v. (BY SRI. M. THIRUMALESH, ADVOCATE)
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
extent, the petition is allowed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. In the light of the issue being similar and the reasons rendered therein becomes applicable to the case at hand, the petition deserves to be disposed on the same lines. Therefore, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The impugned show cause notice issued by…
Case journey
Linked proceedings
Writ Petition No. 7566 of 2025
Writ Petition No. 7008 of 2025
This judgmentLinked proceedings
Writ Petition No. 7566 of 2025
Writ Petition No. 7008 of 2025
This judgmentLinked proceedings
Writ Petition No. 7566 of 2025
Writ Petition No. 7008 of 2025
This judgmentLinked proceedings
Writ Petition No. 7566 of 2025
Writ Petition No. 7008 of 2025
This judgmentRelated proceedings
Writ Appeal No. 2116 of 2025
Writ Appeal No. 2116 of 2025
Writ Appeal No. 2116 of 2025
Writ Appeal No. 2116 of 2025
Writ Appeal No. 2116 of 2025
Writ Appeal No. 2116 of 2025
Writ Appeal No. 2116 of 2025
Writ Appeal No. 2116 of 2025
Writ Appeal No. 2116 of 2025
Writ Appeal No. 2116 of 2025
Writ Appeal No. 2116 of 2025
Writ Appeal No. 2116 of 2025
Writ Appeal No. 2116 of 2025
Writ Appeal No. 2116 of 2025
Writ Appeal No. 2116 of 2025
Writ Appeal No. 2116 of 2025
Writ Appeal No. 2116 of 2025
Writ Appeal No. 2116 of 2025
Writ Appeal No. 2116 of 2025
Writ Appeal No. 2116 of 2025
Writ Appeal No. 2116 of 2025
Writ Appeal No. 2116 of 2025
Writ Appeal No. 2116 of 2025
Writ Appeal No. 2116 of 2025
Writ Appeal No. 2116 of 2025
Writ Appeal No. 2116 of 2025
Writ Appeal No. 2116 of 2025
Writ Appeal No. 2116 of 2025
Writ Appeal No. 2116 of 2025
Writ Appeal No. 2116 of 2025
Writ Appeal No. 2116 of 2025
Writ Appeal No. 2116 of 2025
Writ Appeal No. 2116 of 2025
Writ Appeal No. 2116 of 2025
Writ Appeal No. 2116 of 2025
Writ Appeal No. 2116 of 2025
Writ Appeal No. 2116 of 2025
Writ Appeal No. 2116 of 2025
Writ Appeal No. 2116 of 2025
Built from judgments in the Courts & Cases corpus and the links detected in their text. Coverage is incomplete — earlier or later proceedings may be missing, so verify against the official record. How Case Journey works
Judgment
(BY SRI. RAVI SHANKAR S.V, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka AND:
THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -3(3)(1), BENGALURU HMT BHAWAN, NO. 59, BEALRY ROAD, GANGANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 032
THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BENGALURU -3, BMTC BUILDING - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:39300 WP No. 7008 of 2025 HC-KAR 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BOCK NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE KORAMANGALA BENGALURU - 560 095.
ASSESMENT UNIT/ INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ROOM NO. 401, 2ND FLOOR E-RAMP, JAWARLAL NEHRU STADIUM DELHI - 110 003. (BY SRI. M. THIRUMALESH, ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENTS THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE UNSIGNED SANCTION DATED 27.03.2024 ACCORDED UNDER SECTION 151 OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2020- 21 BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 BEARING DIN AND NOTICE NO. ITBA/AST/S/118/2023-24/1063464320(1) HEREIN MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A AND ETC., - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:39300 WP No. 7008 of 2025 HC-KAR THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayers: “a) b) Issue a writ of Certiorari or direction in the nature of a writ of certiorari quashing the unsigned sanction dated 27.03.2024 accorded under section 151 of assessment year 2020-21 by the Respondent No.2 No. DIN ITBA/AST/S/118/2023-24/1063464320(1) herein marked as Annexure - A. the Act bearing Notice & Issue a writ of Certiorari or direction in the nature of a writ of certiorari quashing the notice issued under section 148 of the Act dated 28.03.2024 of assessment year 2020-21 by the Respondent No. DIN No.1 ITBA/AST/S/148_1/2023-24/1063527119(1) herein marked as Annexure -A1. the Act bearing Notice & c) And pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity. " - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:39300 WP No. 7008 of 2025 HC-KAR
2. Heard Shri Ravishankar S.V., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri M. Thirumalesh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
3. The grounds projected in the subject petition in support of the prayer quoted supra are identical to the ones considered by this Court in W.P.No.28182/2024 and connected matters, disposed on 28.08.2025.
Operative part
In the light of the issue being similar and the reasons rendered therein becomes applicable to the case at hand, the petition deserves to be disposed on the same lines. Therefore, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The impugned show cause notice issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer outside the scope of Section 151-A of the Act stand obliterated. All further proceedings initiated thereto, challenged in this petition would stand quashed. (ii) Liberty is reserved to the respondents - revenue to revive the petition in the event, the Apex Court would hold in favour of the Revenue in the matter pending before it. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:39300 WP No. 7008 of 2025 HC-KAR (iii) With the aforesaid liberty and to the aforesaid extent, the petition is allowed. (iv) Contentions of both the parties except the one noted hereinabove, shall remain open to be considered in the event revival of this petition would become necessary. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 2 Sl No.: 75 CT: BHK
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: extent, the petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Karnataka High Court, on 28 Mar 2024. The bench was M NAGAPRASANNA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.