Smt. Rekha Ramesh V. The Income Tax Officer Ward - 5(1)(1) and National Faceless Assessment Centre

ITA/152/2017

AI Insights

The case involves Smt. Rekha Ramesh, the petitioner, who challenged the orders and notices issued by the Income Tax Department concerning the assessment year 2022-23. The petitioner contested the disallowance of a deduction claimed under Section 54-B of the Act, which was based on the non-reporting of agricultural income in the tax returns. The petitioner argued that the property sold, which was subjected to the deduction, was used for agricultural purposes, supported by photographic evidence. The court's decision to remand the case back to the assessing officer was based on the need for a more thorough examination of the petitioner's claims and the evidence provided.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 832670 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 22-01-2026
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: THIRUMALESH
• Assessee Lawyers: RAVI SHANKAR V
• Keywords: Agricultural income; Assessment; Income Tax; Penalty; Unexplained cash credit; Writ petition
• Section: 143(3); 270A; 144B; 271AAC(1); 54-B

Judgement Text

" - 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3678 WP No. 1624 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 1624 OF 2026 (T-IT) BETWEEN: SMT. REKHA RAMESH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, D/O P NITYANANDAN NO.274/A, PARK CIRCLE, BEML LAYOUT, 3RD STAGE, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE - 562162 PAN: AHEPR0380B. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR S V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 5(1)(1), BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE - 560095. 2. NATIONAL 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 - 110003. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. THIRUMALESH., ADVOCATE) Printed from counselvise.com Digitally signed by VIDYA G R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3678 WP No. 1624 of 2026 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144B OF THE ACT, DATED 21/03/2024 VIDE DIN ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2023- 24/1063120148(1) PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2022-23 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 Petitioner has called in question the order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') at Annexure-A; penalty orders at Annexures-A1 and A2; notice under Section 270A of the Act at Annexure-A3 and the notice under Section 271AAC(1) of the Act at Annexure-A4. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was not afforded adequate opportunity in the assessment proceedings and the assessing officer has disallowed deduction claimed under Section 54-B of the Printed from counselvise.com - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3678 WP No. 1624 of 2026 Act, while observing that agricultural income was not reported in the returns. 3. It is submitted that the property sold was infact being used for agricultural purposes as is evident from the photographs Annexures-K, K1 and K2. It is submitted that the said fact of the property being subjected to agricultural operation could be demonstrated if adequate opportunity is given. As regards to other factors as well, it is submitted that petitioner would be in a position to demonstrate the subsidy received as well as the amount of Rs.2.85 crores treated as unexplained cash credit. 4. Taking note of the submissions made, it would be appropriate to remand the matter back to the assessing officer to the stage of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. Petitioner is at liberty to make out his reply to the said notice. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there may be a necessity for a spot inspection. However, Printed from counselvise.com - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3678 WP No. 1624 of 2026 that is an aspect to be looked into by the authorities appropriately. 6. Accordingly, the order at Annexure-A; penalty orders at Annexures-A1 and A2 and the penalty notices at Annexures-A3 and A4 are set aside. The matter is remitted to the stage as indicated above. 7. The writ petition is disposed of. All contentions are kept open. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VP Printed from counselvise.com "