Income Tax Notice u/s 148a(B) Would Be Unsustainable if Period Provided for Compliance is Less than 7 Days: Karnataka HC [Read Order]

The High Court of Karnataka has disposed of a Writ Appeal filed by the Income Tax Department after noting that the core issue raised by the Revenue had already been considered and answered by the same Court in a previous ruling. The Bench observed that in the previous judgement, the court held that notice under Section 148A(b) would be unsustainable if the period provided for compliance is less than seven days.

The Division Bench, comprising Justice S.G. Pandit and Justice Rajesh Rai K, heard the intra-Court appeal filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961. The appellants, including the Income Tax Officer Ward-1 & TPS Bengaluru and the National Faceless Assessment Centre, had challenged an order passed by the Single Judge in favour of Bevinakuppe Ningegowda Ramalingegowda. The Revenue sought to overturn the Single Judge’s decision, arguing for a different interpretation of the law.

During the hearing, the Standing Counsel for the appellants and the Counsel for the respondent made a joint submission regarding the status of the legal question involved. They brought to the Court's attention that the precise issue contested in the present appeal had already been examined by the High Court in W.A. No. 1141 of 2026, which was decided on April 17, 2026.

Taking note of this submission, the Division Bench chose not to delve into a fresh analysis of the merits of the case. Justice S.G. Pandit, who delivered the oral judgment, stated that in light of the submission that the matter was covered by the earlier judgment, the present appeal must be resolved in similar terms.

The Court explicitly recorded that the question raised in the present appeal is "considered and answered" in the aforementioned earlier order. Consequently, the Bench passed a concise order disposing of the present Writ Appeal in terms of the order dated 17.04.2026 in W.A. No. 1141/2026. In the said petition, it was contended that the notice has been set aside as though the grant of a period of less than seven days would affect the jurisdiction to issue notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act. It is further submitted that Section 148A provides for extension of time up to thirty days and, therefore, the minimum period of seven days is not mandatory but only directory.

The court in the said ruling held that notice under Section 148A(b) would be unsustainable if the period provided for compliance is less than seven days.

By referring to the settled position in the earlier judgment, the Court avoided unnecessary duplication of judicial work and provided immediate clarity to the parties involved. Any pending interlocutory applications associated with the appeal were also disposed of by the Court.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates