SRI. PANATI VIDYANATH REDDY, V. THE DEPUTY / ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

WP/3644/2026

AI Insights

The case involves a writ petition filed by Sri. Panati Vidyanath Reddy against the penalty order under Section 271AAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, issued by the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(4), Bangalore (respondent No. 2). The penalty was imposed for the assessment year 2015-16. The petitioner contended that the proposed additions, which were the basis for the penalty, had been abandoned in a subsequent order (Annexure-H), thus rendering the penalty unjust. The petitioner also highlighted the delay in the adjudication of his appeal against the penalty, which was still pending before the National Faceless Appeal Centre (respondent No. 4). The court's decision focused on ensuring a timely resolution of the pending appeal rather than addressing the substantive issues of the penalty itself.

• Counselvise Citation: [] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 840673 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 18-02-2026
• 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 2015-16; Income Tax; Penalty order; Pending appeal; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 271AAB

Judgement Text

" - 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9858 WP No. 3644 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 3644 OF 2026 (T-IT) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. PANATI VIDYANATH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/O P CHANGA REDDY, NO.10, SRI RAMANJANEYA NILAYA, 32ND MAIN ROAD, 5TH CROSS, DOLLARS COLONY, BTM 1ST STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 068. PAN: AFMPR3580F … PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVI SHANKAR S V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY / ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(3)(1), BANGALORE - 560 095 2. THE DEPUTY / ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), BANGALORE - 560 001 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - APPEALS -11, THE OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - APPEALS -11, Printed from counselvise.com Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9858 WP No. 3644 of 2026 NO.322, IIIRD FLOOR, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001 4. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ROOM NO. 401 2ND FLOOR, E-RAMP, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, DELHI - 110 003 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI M. DILIP, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE PENALTY ORDER UNDER SECTION 271AAB OF THE ACT DATED 11/10/2017 BEARING F.NO.AFMPR3580F/ACIT-CC-2(4)/2017- 18 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 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 sought for setting aside of the penalty order under Section 271AAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 11.10.2017 passed by respondent No. 2 for the assessment year 2015-16 at Annexure-A. Petitioner has also sought for issuance of writ of mandamus to direct Printed from counselvise.com - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9858 WP No. 3644 of 2026 respondent No. 4 to adjudicate and decide the penalty appeal for the assessment year 2015-16 within 3 months. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised various contentions including that the proposed additions have been given up in the order at Annexure-H and accordingly the question of imposing penalty does not arise. 3. However, it is noticed that an appeal against the order of penalty is still pending before respondent No.4. Petitioner submits that he has made several representations and raised grievances regarding non disposal of the penalty appeal. Reliance is placed on the petition/representation at Annexure-L. 4. Taking note that the appeal is pending though not decided and also taking note of the repeated representations of the petitioner, it would be appropriate to direct respondent No. 4 to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner, acknowledgement of which is produced at Printed from counselvise.com - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9858 WP No. 3644 of 2026 Annexure-E, within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Such a direction is passed taking note that the appeal relates to the year 2017. All contentions are kept open. 5. Accordingly, petition is disposed of. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VP Printed from counselvise.com "