✦ Karnataka High Court

(BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, SR. STANDING COUNSEL) v. KOLAR DISTRICT

Writ Appeal No. 1368 of 2025S G PANDIT, K V ARAVIND3 min read

Case at a glance

Outcome

Dismissed

decision, the present appeal stands dismissed

Provisions considered

Key paragraphs

  • Para 88. 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

Case journey

Linked proceedings

Earlier proceedings, if any, are not linked in the corpus
Karnataka High Court
NARAYANASWAMY GANGARAJU v. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Writ Petition No. 5970 of 2025

Evidence kept · not yet reviewed
Karnataka High CourtDate not recorded
Judgment · High Court

Writ Appeal No. 1368 of 2025

This judgment

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

Cause title

1. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 NEW EXTENSION KOLAR-563101.

2. ASSESSMENT UNIT INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT MINISTRY OF FINANCE NEW DELHI-110001.

(BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, SR. STANDING COUNSEL) …APPELLANTS

NANJUNDACHARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND: NARAYANASWAMY GANGARAJU S/O NARAYANASWAMY 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. - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:10353-DB WA No. 1368 of 2025 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 contentions urged by the appellant-revenue. - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:10353-DB WA No. 1368 of 2025 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, impugned notice was issued on - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:10353-DB WA No. 1368 of 2025 HC-KAR

20.03.2022 and the Assessee was called upon to furnish a reply on or before

25.03.2022. Indisputably, impugned notice did not comply with the requirement of providing a minimum period of seven days to respond to the said notice. "

Operative part

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

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: decision, the present appeal stands dismissed

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Income Tax Act, 1961 — s. 148A(b); A(b) of the Act.

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.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Karnataka High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Writ Appeal No. 1368 of 2025). ← Search more judgments