Karnataka High Court
WA/1351/2026 of THE INCOME TAX OFFICER Vs SMT. PRAVEENA KUMARI on 4 June 2026
NC: 2026:KHC:26322-DB WA No. 1351 of 2026 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.1351 OF 2026 (T-IT) BETWEEN: 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(2)(5),
HC-KAR
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.1351 OF 2026 (T-IT)
BETWEEN:
1.
THE INCOME TAX OFFICER
WARD-2(2)(5), BANGALORE
BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD
6TH BLOCK, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE
KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU- 560 095.
2.
THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER
OF INCOME TAX
KARNATAKA AND GOA
BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD
6TH BLOCK, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE
KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU- 560 095.
3.
ASSESSMENT UNIT
NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE
INCOME TAX OFFICER,
INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT,
MINISTRY OF FINANCE,
ROOM NO.401, 2ND FLOOR,
E-RAMP, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM,
DELHI - 110 003.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. THIRUMALESH M.,ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by
VIJAYALAKSHMI
B N
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
AND:
SMT. PRAVEENA KUMARI
W/O LATE SHRI PRAVEEN KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
NO.3 AND 4, 2ND FLOOR,
29TH CROSS, KILLARI ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 053.
…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.9680 OF 2024 (T-IT) AND
PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER AS THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS
FIT, UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
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 DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
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.
HC-KAR
2. Both 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 and 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.
4. Smt. 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.
HC-KAR
7. The 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".
3. The present appeal also involves identical facts and 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.: 12