Yashomati Hospitals Private Limited V. Union of India and Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2(2)(1)

WP/13682/2024

AI Insights

In this case, Yashomati Hospitals Private Limited, represented by its director, filed a writ petition against the Union of India and the Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, challenging orders related to the reassessment of income for the Assessment Year 2020-2021. The petitioner argued that the reassessment was unjustified as the company had already settled its dues under a resolution plan approved by the NCLT, which was not considered by the respondents. The court, referencing judgments from the Supreme Court, found merit in the petitioner's arguments and set aside the impugned orders, directing a fresh reconsideration of the case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 822290 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 12-12-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Vaibhav Goel and another vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and another, Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons (P) Ltd. vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: POOJAPPA; E I SANMATHI
• Assessee Lawyers: AMSHUMAN; A G SATHYANARAYANA
• Keywords: Assessment year 2020-2021; Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process; Income Tax; Writ of Certiorari; Writ of Mandamus; NCLT Bangalore
• Section: 148; 148A

Judgement Text

" - 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53001 WP No. 13682 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 13682 OF 2024 (T-IT) BETWEEN: 1. YASHOMATI HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED REP BY ITS DIRECTOR MR SUNDARARAJU VIJAYABASKARAN 2371/3, HAL AIRPORT - VARTHUR ROAD MUNNE KOLALU, MARATHAHALLI BANGALORE, KARNATAKA - 560 037 REP BY ITS DIRECTOR, SOUNDARARAJAN VIJAYABASKARAN. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. AMSHUMAN. M.,ADVOCATE AND SRI. A.G. SATHYANARAYANA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA REP BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, ROOM NO.46 NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI - 110 001 2. OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(2)(1), BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 095 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. POOJAPPA J., ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) Printed from counselvise.com Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53001 WP No. 13682 of 2024 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO I) QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19/03/2024 IN DIN AND ORDER NO. ITBA/AST/F/148A/2023-24/1062951151(1) (ANNEXURE-L) PASSED BY THE R2 UNDER CLAUSE (d) OF SECTION 148A OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2020-2021 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs - I. Issue a WRIT OF CERTIORARI and quash the impugned order dated 19.03.2024 in DIN & Order No. ITBA/AST/F/148A/2023-24/1062951151(1) (Annexure 'L') passed by the 2nd Respondent under Clause (d) of Section 148A of the Act for the Assessment Year 2020-2021. II. Issue a WRIT OF CERTIORARI and quash the impugned notice dated 19.03.2024 in DIN & Order No. ITBA/AST/S/148_1/2023-24/1062951502(1) (Annexure 'M) passed by the 2nd Respondent under Section 148 of the Act to reassess the Petitioner's income for the Assessment Year 2020-2021. III. Issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS to direct the 1st Respondent to forbear the 2nd Respondent or its superiors, subordinates, agents, from re-assessing the Petitioner's income for the Assessment Year 2020 to 2021 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. IV. Issue any other writ, order or direction to which the Petitioner is found entitled to in the present facts and circumstances. Printed from counselvise.com - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53001 WP No. 13682 of 2024 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the order dated 16.06.2023 passed by this Court in WP 10472/2023 which is the earlier petition filed by the petitioner against the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, the petitioner appeared before the respondent and put forth various contentions including the contention that the resolution plan had already been approved on 30.02.2022 by the NCLT Bangalore and the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs. 97,67,296/- to the respondents towards full and final payment of the claim of the respondents as against the petitioner despite which the respondent has proceeded to pass the impugned order without taking note of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and as such petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. It is submitted that the petitioner is a third party and the CIRP proceedings commenced on 16.03.2021, prior to the impugned proceedings initiated by the respondent, which are not maintainable. It is also submitted that in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vaibhav Goel and another vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and another reported in (2025) 8 SCC 511, wherein it is held that income tax dues/liabilities which are not claimed prior Printed from counselvise.com - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53001 WP No. 13682 of 2024 to and are not part of the approved resolution plan get extinguished by following the earlier judgment of the Apex Court in Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons (P) Ltd., vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd., reported in (2021) 9 SCC 657 and the impugned order deserves to be quashed. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 4. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the name of the petitioner company was changed from M/s. Yashoda Medicare and Research Centre Pvt. Ltd., to M/s. Yashomati Hospitals Pvt. Ltd., on 13.03.2013 and corporate insolvency resolution process was initiated before the NCLT Bangalore on 16.03.2021 and an order was passed approving the resolution plan submitted by M/s. Sri Kauveri Medical Care (India) Ltd., on 30.05.2022. On 23.06.2022, the second respondent sought status update of the claim of Rs. 97,67,296/- from the petitioner who paid the entire amount on 29.06.2022, the entire - 100% amount claimed by them and a clarification letter was issued on 02.02.2024 Printed from counselvise.com - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53001 WP No. 13682 of 2024 in this regard. So also on 13.02.2024, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the clarification letter along with documentary evidence despite which the respondent issued one more notice on 07.03.2024 under Section 148-A(d) of the Income Tax Act to which the petitioner submitted a detailed reply along with appropriate documents on 14.03.2024. However, despite the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the documents produced by the petitioner including the payment of the entire Rs. 97,67,296, the respondent has proceeded to pass the interim order without taking into account the aforesaid facts, circumstances and documents. Therefore, I deemed it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders within a stipulated time frame. 5. In the result, I pass the following. ORDER (i) The petition is hereby allowed. (ii) Impugned Orders/ Notices at Annexures L and M are hereby set aside. Printed from counselvise.com - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53001 WP No. 13682 of 2024 (iii) Matter is remitted back to the respondent No. 2 for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law, bearing in mind the observations made in the body of this order. (iv) The petitioner shall appear before the respondent No. 2 on 19.01.2026 without awaiting further notice from the respondent No. 2. (v) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit documents, pleadings, judgments etc., which shall be considered by the respondent No. 2, who shall provide sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and hear him and proceed further in accordance with law Bearing in mind the observations made as well as the judgment of the Apex Court in Vaibhav Goel's case supra. (vi) The second respondent shall conclude the proceedings within a period of three months from 19.01.2026. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE YKL List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4 Printed from counselvise.com "