Sai Srushti Infrastructure V. Assessment Unit Income Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre and Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1)(1) and Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1)(1) and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1

WP/2980/2026

AI Insights

The case involves M/s Sai Srushti Infrastructure, a partnership firm, challenging the validity of ex-parte assessment orders issued by the Income Tax Department for the assessment years 2019-20 and 2018-19. The petitioner argued that they were not able to respond to the show cause notices as they were sent to the email of a former employee. The respondents contended that the notices were sent to the email address provided by the petitioner, and thus, the orders were issued with due notice. The court found that the assessment orders were passed without considering any reply to the show cause notice and decided to set aside the orders, allowing the petitioner an opportunity to respond.

• Counselvise Citation: [] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 834766 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 04-02-2026
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: M DILIP
• Assessee Lawyers: MADHUSUDHAN
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Best Judgment Assessment; Ex parte order; Show cause notice; Writ of Certiorari
• Section: 147; 144; 144B; 226; 227

Judgement Text

" - 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6395 WP No. 2980 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 2980 OF 2026 (T-IT) BETWEEN: 1. M/S SAI SRUSHTI INFRASTRUCTURE A PARTNERSHIP FIRM (UNDER REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932) REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SHRI. NAYANI SREENADHA REDDY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, SON OF JANARDHANA REDDY NAYANI HAVING OFFICE AT 3287, 3RD FLOOR, 12TH MAIN, HAL 2ND STAGE, INDIRANAGAR BENGALURU-560 038 … PETITIONER (BY SRI. MADHUSUDHAN U A., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ASSESSMENT UNIT INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ROOM NO 401, 2ND FLOOR, E-RAMP, JAWARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, DELHI-110 003 Printed from counselvise.com Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6395 WP No. 2980 of 2026 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1)(1), BMTC BUILDING, 8OFT ROAD, 6TH BLOCK KHB VILLAGE, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU - 560 095 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1)(1) BMTC BUILDING, 80FT ROAD, 6TH BLOCK KHB VILLAGE, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU - 560 095 4. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1 CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. DILIP., ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 27.02.2024 PASSED UNDER SECTION 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2019-20 BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 BEARING DIN NO. ITBA/AST/S/147/2023-24/1061584527(1) HEREIN MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A1 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 Printed from counselvise.com - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6395 WP No. 2980 of 2026 ORAL ORDER Petitioner has called in question the validity of the assessment order at Annexure-A1 with respect to the assessment year 2019-20 and the order at Annexure-C1 for the assessment year 2018-19. 2. Petitioner submits that the said orders are ex- parte orders and the petitioner was not in a position to make out reply to the show cause notice. It is submitted that the notices were sent to the email ID of the employee who had since left the services of the company. Accordingly, it is submitted that the petitioner did not have information regarding the same. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent - Revenue submits that email ID to which notices were sent was the email ID furnished by the petitioner and accordingly, it cannot be contented that the orders were without notice. It is further submitted that the relationship between the Printed from counselvise.com - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6395 WP No. 2980 of 2026 petitioner and the employee cannot be taken note of as it is an internal matter of the petitioner's company. 4. Heard both sides. 5. Perused the orders at Annexures-A1 and C1. It is noticed that the orders passed are on the principle of best judgment assessment. There is no reference to any reply to the show cause notice. Taking note of the consequences that would visit the petitioner, it would be appropriate to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to take his stand on merits by making out reply to the show cause notice. The lapse of the petitioner could be condoned. Taking note of the financial prejudice that may be caused if the orders are allowed to stand, the petitioner is put on terms. 6. Accordingly, the orders at Annexures-A1 and C1 i.e. assessment orders for the respective assessment years of 2019-20 and 2018-19 are set aside. Annexures - A2 to A9 and C2 to C6 are also set aside. The matter is Printed from counselvise.com - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6395 WP No. 2980 of 2026 remitted to the stage of reply to the show cause notices at Annexures-B1 and D1 for the respective years. All contentions on merits are kept open. Petitioner to pay cost of Rs.20,000/- to the High Court Legal Services Committee. 7. Accordingly, petition is disposed of. SD/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VP Printed from counselvise.com "