- Court
- High Court of Karnataka
- Decided
- 4 June 2026
- Bench
- S.G.Pandit, K.Manmadha Rao
- Case no.
- WA 1372/2026
Follow Karnataka High CourtFollow S.G.PanditFollow K.Manmadha Rao
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO. 1372 OF 2026 (T-IT) BETWEEN:
¶1INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 1 & TPS BENGALURU – 571 401.
¶2NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ROOM NO.401, 2ND FLOOR, E-RAMP, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, DELHI - 110 003.
¶3THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, THE OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 095. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI.THIRUMALESH M.,ADVOCATE)
by VIJAYALAKSHMI B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AND:
SRI UMESHA HEMMANAHALLI CHANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O CHANNAIAH, HEMMANAHALLY VILLAGE, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA - 571 428. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.S.V.RAVISHANKAR.,ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 08/09/2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.13259/2025 AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)
Heard learned counsel Sri.Thirumalesh M appearing for the appellants and learned counsel Sri.S V Ravishankar appearing for the respondent.
¶2Both learned counsel appearing for the parties would submit that the issue and substantial question of
law raised in the above appeal are considered in W.A.No.1141/2026 disposed of on
17.04.2026 relevant paragraph Nos.3, 4 and 7 reads as follows: "3. The brief facts are that the appellant had issued a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"). The said notice was challenged in the writ petition on the ground that the minimum period of seven days was not granted and, therefore, the same was unsustainable in law. The learned Single Judge, following the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A No.612 of 2025 in the case of Income Tax Officer and ors. v. Venkatala Iyyappa Rajanna, set aside the notice issued under Section 148A(b), the order passed under Section 148A(d), the notice issued under Section 148, the assessment made under Section 147 read with Section 144, and also the penalty notices issued under Sections 271AAC(1) and 272A(1)(d) of the Act.
¶4Smt. Niyathi, learned counsel appearing for Sri M. Thirumalesh, learned standing counsel for the appellant-Revenue, submits that where the time limit provided for compliance with the notice is less than seven days, and the same being extendable, the grant of a minimum period of seven days is not mandatory. It is contended that the notice has been set aside as though the grant of a period of less than seven days would affect the jurisdiction to issue notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act. It is further submitted that Section 148A provides for extension of time up to thirty days and, therefore, the minimum period of seven days is not mandatory but only directory.
¶7The identical issue came up for consideration before this Court in W.A No.612 of 2025 in the case of Venkatala Iyyappa Rajanna (supra), disposed of on
05.08.2025, wherein it was held that a notice under Section 148A(b) would be unsustainable if the period provided for compliance is less than seven days. The learned Single Judge, following the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, has set aside the
notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act. Once the notice is set aside, all consequential orders and notices would also become unsustainable".
¶3The present appeal also involves identical facts circumstances. In terms of the order dated
17.04.2026 in W.A.No.1141/2026, the present appeal also stands dismissed. Pending Interlocutory Application/s, if any, stands disposed of.
SD/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE
SD/- (DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE
GSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17
Source: High Court of Karnataka, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.