Late Dayananda Donappa v. Income Tax Officer

e -e1e-eeeee e e NC:(2026:KHC:6432 WP(No.(343(of(2026 IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU( THDATED(THIS(THE(4 (DAY(OF(FEBRUARY,(2026( BEFORE( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(S(SUNIL(DUTT(YADAV( WRIT(PETITION(NO.(343(OF(2026((T-IT) BETWEEN:( LATE,DAYANANDA,DONAPPA, AGE,34,YEARS,, THE,METROPOLITAN,, BANDRA,KURLA,COMPLEX,,, BANDRA,EAST,,, MUMBAI,-,400,051, PAN:,AJZPD0426F, REPRESENTED,BY,LR,OF,THE,PETITIONER,, Y,B,NANDINI,, NO.2050/A,,OMKARESHWARA,EXTENSION,,, JAGALUR,,DAVANAGERE,-,577,528., …PETITIONER, (BY,SRI.,RAVI,SHANKAR,S,V.,,ADVOCATE), Digitally signedtiby AND: VIJAYA0P Location: HIGH 1., INCOME,TAX,OFFICER,, COURT0OF TH KARNATAKA 4 ,CROSS,ROAD,,DEVARAJ,URS,BADAVANE,, DAVANAGERE,,, KARNATAKA,-,577,006.,

2., INCOME,TAX,OFFICER,, WARD,4,, PANVEL,-,410,206.,

3., NATIONAL,FACELESS,ASSESSMENT,CENTRE,, ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT, COMMISSIONER,OF,INCOME,TAX/, e -e2e-eeeee e e NC:(2026:KHC:6432 WP(No.(343(of(2026 INCOME,TAX,OFFICER,,, INCOME,TAX,DEPARTMENT,,, MINISTRY,OF,FINANCE,,, NDROOM,NO.401,,2 ,FLOOR,,, E-RAMP,,JAWAHARLAL,NEHRU,STADIUM,, DELHI,-,110,003.,

4., PRINCIPAL,CHIEF,COMMISSIONER,OF,INCOME,TAX,, ND2 ,FLOOR,,AAYAKAR,BHAVAN,,, 12,,SADHU,VASWANI,CHOWK,,, PUNE,,, MAHARASHTRA,-,411,001., …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.,M.,DILIP,,ADVOCATE), , THIS,W.P.,IS,FILED,UNDER,ARTICLES,226,AND,227,OF, THE, CONSTITUTION, OF, INDIA, PRAYING, TO, QUASH, THE, NOTICE, UNDER, SECTION, 148A(b), OF, THE, ACT, DATED, 22/02/2023, BEARING, DIN, NO.ITBA/AST/F/148A(SCN)/2022-23/1050011521(1), ISSUED, BY, THE, RESPONDENT, NO.2, FOR, THE, ASSESSMENT, YEAR, 2016-17, HEREIN, MARKED, AS, ANNEXURE-A,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 The petitioner has called in question the validity of the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'IT Act') at Annexure-A, order under Section 148A(d) at Annexure-A1, notice under Section at Annexure-A2, unsigned sanction order at Annexure-A3, order under Section 147 at Annexure-A4 and penalty orders at Annexures-A5, A6 and A7.

¶2It is the case of the petitioner that no reply was made out to the notice issued under Section 148A(b) at Annexure-A, that the information that refers to two sales of Rs.30,00,000/- which is contrary to facts, that the petitioner has purchased only one property with a loan. However, petitioner submits it was not possible to reply to the said show-cause notice, due to bona-fide reasons.

¶3It is noticed that after the death of Dayananda Donappa, his legal representative has been registered as a representative and such fact is not controverted. In light

of the order under Section 148A(d) of the IT Act being passed without reply to notice under Section 148A(b), it would be appropriate in light of the contention raised by the petitioner that he had purchased only one property by taking loan, to set aside the order under Section 148A(d) and remit the matter back to the stage of reply to notice under Section 148A(b).

¶4Though the notice under Section 148A(b) at Annexure-A is issued by the jurisdictional assessing officer at Mumbai, however, in light of his death and PAN of the dead assessee, now being linked to that of the petitioner as a representative assessee, it would be appropriate to direct the petitioner to appear before the jurisdictional assessing officer at Davanagere i.e., respondent No.1 and make out reply to the notice under section 148A(b).

¶5Accordingly, Annexures-A1 to A7 are set aside. Matter is remitted back to the stage of reply to the notice

under Section 148A(b). Petitioner to appear before respondent No.1 without further notice on 26.02.2026.

¶6The notice under Section 148A(b) will now have to be deemed to have been issued by respondent No.1, in light of the death of Dayananda Donappa and the petitioner having registered PAN as a representative assessee. All contentions are kept open.

¶7Accordingly, petition is disposed of. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE MCR