SRI GURUPRASAD TULAHALLI SHETRU V. INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP/209/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Sri. Gurupasad Tulahalli Shetru, the petitioner, who challenged the notices and orders issued by the Income Tax Department under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2016-17. The core issue was the incorrect treatment of a loan as income, leading to the issuance of a notice under Section 148A(b). The petitioner argued that the objections and documents provided were not considered by the authorities, which led to an erroneous order. The court found that the objections were indeed not considered and thus remanded the matter back to respondent No.1 for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 761569 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 13-01-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: E I SANMATHI; M DILIP
• Assessee Lawyers: RAVISHANKAR
• Keywords: Assessment Year 2016-17; Income Tax; Notice; Loan as Income; Objection Not Considered
• Section: 148A(b); 148A(d)

Judgement Text

" - 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1118 WP No. 209 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO. 209 OF 2025 (T-IT) BETWEEN: SRI. GURUPRASAD TULAHALLI SHETRU, S/O KUMARASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, SAN JOSE, CA, USA-95123, PERMANENT ADDRESS, NO.3714/59, 13TH CROSS, MCC A BLOCK, SOUTHERN EXTENSION-DVG S.O, DAVANAGERE-577 004, PREVIOUSLY RESIDING AT, NO.2222/1, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR, TUMKUR-572 101, PAN ADJPT7255Q REPRESENTED BY, P O A HOLDER OF THE PETITIONER, MRS KALAVATHI B, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, D/O G. BASAVARAJU, NO.2008, 1ST C MAIN ROAD, RPC LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE-560 040 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVI SHANKAR S.V., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1118 WP No. 209 of 2025 AND: 1. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD INTL. TAXATION 1(1), BANGALORE 560 095. 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 AND TPS, TUMKUR-572 103. 3. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT), ROOM NO. 317, 3RD FLOOR, E-2 BLOCK, DR. S.P. MUKHERJEE CIVIC CENTRE, MINTO ROAD, NEW DELHI 110 002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI AND SRI. M. DILIP, ADVOCATES) 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. 20.03.2023 BEARING DIN NO. ITBA/AST/F/148A(SCN)/2022- 23/1050967518(1) ISSUED BY THE R-2 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17 HEREIN MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1118 WP No. 209 of 2025 ORAL ORDER Heard Sri. Ravi Shankar.S.V., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. E.I.Sanmathi and Sri. M.Dilip., learned counsels for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Perused the writ petition papers. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the Notice dated 20.03.2023 bearing No.ITBA/AST/F/148A(SCN)/2022-23/1050967518(1) issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short '1961 Act') as well as order passed under clause (d) of Section 148A of 1961 Act and also Notice under clause (b) of Section 148A of 1961 Act (Annexure-A1) issued by respondent No.2. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the loan taken by the petitioner is taken as income and Notice under Section 148A(b) of 1961 Act is issued. Learned counsel invites attention of this Court to Annexure-A2, Order passed under clause (d) of Section 148A of the 1961 Act by respondent No.1 and submits that the same is passed without looking into - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1118 WP No. 209 of 2025 the objection filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel further invites attention of this Court to objection filed enclosing the documents, which are placed on record as Annexure-D at Page- 90 and also Annexure-E at Page-119 of the writ petition and submits that the Order passed by respondent No.1 is without looking into the objections. Further learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that if respondent No.1 had looked into the objections filed by the petitioner, respondent No.1 would have dropped further proceedings. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for remanding the matter to respondent No.1 for consideration afresh taking note of the objections filed by the petitioner. 4. Per contra, learned counsel Sri. E.I.Sanmathi is not in a position to dispute the factual position and fairly submits that respondent No.1 appears to have not taken note of the objections filed by the petitioner while passing Order under Section 148A(b) of 1961 Act and also Final Assessment Order at Annexure-A4 dated 27.04.2024. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1118 WP No. 209 of 2025 5. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, I am of the view that the matter needs reconsideration by respondent No.1. 6. The matter relates to Assessment Year 2016-17. Respondent No.2 issued Annexure-A, Notice under clause (b) of Section 148A of 1961 Act, calling upon the petitioner to show- cause as to why, in view of the details contained in the enclosed documents, a Notice under Section 148 of 1961 Act should not be issued. The petitioner submitted his reply on 25.03.2023 as at Annexure-D2 and submitted one more reply on 26.03.2023 (Annexure-D). Thereafter, respondent No.2 transmitted the file to respondent No.1 since it related to International Taxation. Respondent No.1 proceeded to pass orders as at Annexure-A2 dated 20.04.2023 under clause (d) of Section 148A of 1961 Act and a perusal of the Order indicates that while passing the orders, respondent No.1 noted that Assessee has not submitted reply. But factually, the said finding is not correct and the petitioner in fact filed objection on 25.03.2023 as well as 26.03.2023 and in addition, the objection was filed before respondent No.1 on 13.04.2023 (Annexure-E). Since respondent No.1 has not taken note of the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1118 WP No. 209 of 2025 objections filed by the petitioner enclosing document to show that the petitioner had obtained loan from the Bank, the matter needs reconsideration. The 1st respondent was obliged to consider the objections filed and then ought to have proceed to pass order under Section 148A(b) of 1961 Act. Hence, the following: ORDER (a) Writ petition is allowed; (b) Annexure-A2 bearing No.ITBA/AST/F/148A/2023- 24/1052239426(1) dated 20.04.2023; Annexure-A3 bearing No.ITBA/AST/S/148_1/2023- 24/1052239500(1) dated 20.04.2023; Annexure-A4 bearing No.ITBA/AST/S/147/2024- 25/1064406898(1) dated 27.04.2024; Annexure- A5 bearing No.ITBA/PNL/S/271(1)(c)/2024- 25/1064406903(1) dated 27.04.2024; Annexure- A6 bearing No.ITBA/PNL/S/271F/2024- 25/1064442239(1) dated 29.04.2024; Annexure- A7 bearing No.ITBA/PNL/F/271(1)(b)/2024- 25/1070032512(1) dated 29.10.2024 are quashed; - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:1118 WP No. 209 of 2025 (c) Respondent No.1 is directed to consider the objection filed by the petitioner at Annexure-D dated 26.03.2023; Annexure-D2 dated 25.03.2023 and Annexure-E dated 13.04.2023 and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE SMJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18 "