SMT. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR., ADVOCATE) v. ADVOCATES)
Case at a glance
- Bench
- B M SHYAM PRASAD
- Neutral citation
- 2026:KHC:25484
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Income Tax Act, 1961 ss. 143(3), 144B
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - 1, 5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 6TH BLOCK, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE 560095. (BY SRI.Y.V. RAVIRAJ AND SRI VINAYAKA G PANDIT, , ADVOCATES) …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (A)…
Judgment
(BY MS. MANASA ANANTHAN., ADVOCATE FOR SMT. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR., ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER AND:
ASSESSMENT UNIT., INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, ROOM NO. 401, 2ND FLOOR, E-RAMP, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, DELHI 110003. - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:25484 WP No. 15921 of 2026 HC-KAR
INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2)(1) BMTC BUILDING, 6TH BLOCK, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE 560 095.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - 1, 5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 6TH BLOCK, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE 560095. (BY SRI.Y.V. RAVIRAJ AND SRI VINAYAKA G PANDIT, , ADVOCATES) …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (A) QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 18.03.2026 BEARING DIN ITBA/ AST/S/ 143(3)/ 2025-26/1087551060(1) (ANNEXURE- G-1) PASSED BY THE 1 RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 1448 OF THE ACT, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2024-25; (B) QUASHING THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 18.03.2026 BEARING DIN ITBA/AST/S/156/2025-26/1087551298(1) ISSUED BY THE 1 RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE 'G-2') TO THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 156 OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2024-25; (C) QUASHING THE PENALTY NOTICE DATED 18.03.2026 BEARING DIN ITBA/PNL/S/270A/2025-26/1087553425(1) ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE - G-3) UNDER - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:25484 WP No.
15921 of 2026 HC-KAR SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 270A OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2024- 25. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The short question for consideration is whether this Court must intervene with the assessment order relevant to the petitioner and the assessment year 2024-25, and this question is presented with the petitioner calling in question the assessment order dated 18.03.2026 [Annexure-G1] under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short, 'the IT Act']. The petitioner has also called in question demand/penalty notices [Annexures - G2 and G3]. Ms. Manasa Ananthan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the short ground urged is about the lack of a reasonable opportunity, and in elaboration, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner made a request on 10.03.2026 for extension of [for - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:25484 WP No.
15921 of 2026 HC-KAR adjournment by 10 days] and that the first respondent has completed the assessment proceedings by the impugned order without considering the request. The learned counsel submits that this Court may consider that the petitioner has not filed any response under the bonafide belief that the request for adjournment would be considered. Mr. Vinayaka G. Pandit, the learned standing counsel for the respondents, is heard in the light of the circumstances and the narrow canvas presented consideration. This Court finds that the proceedings are completed with the aid of Section 144B of the IT Act without communication of a decision on request adjournment and this must suffice for this Court's interference to ensure that the proceedings are after a reasonable opportunity. Hence, the following: ORDER The petition is allowed-in-part quashing impugned order and notices [Annexures - G1 to G3] restoring the proceedings for reconsideration with liberty to the petitioner to file reply and upload documents on the portal calling upon the authorities to ensure that there is - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:25484 WP No. 15921 of 2026 HC-KAR necessary enablement in this regard on the portal upon receipt of a certified copy of this order and that there is due communication of such enablement to the petitioner. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SA ct:sr
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.