SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 39179

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
MRS. TEJAL MILAN PARIKH – Appellant
Versus
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – Respondent
WP 28317/2025



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.28317 OF 2025 (T-IT)

BETWEEN:

MRS. TEJAL MILAN PARIKH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS WIFE OF LATE MR MILAN PARIKH R/AT NO.603, 6TH FLOOR RENAISSANCE PARK-2, 1ST MAIN ROAD

2ND STAGE, SUBRAMANYANAGAR RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 055.

…PETITIONER (BY SMT. RUPA RON, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. KIRAN V. RON, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE SHRADHA BUILDING SARAF COLONY KHANAPUT ROAD TILAKWADI BELAGAVI – 590 001.

Dig itally signed by

2. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHANDANA CENTRAL RANGE B M PANAJI, GOA – 403 001.

Location:

…RESPONDENTS High Court (BY SRI. DILIP, ADVOCATE)

of Karnataka THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR WRIT, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER BEARING DIN AND ORDER NO. ITBA/AST/S/144/2024-25/1071893305(1) DATED 06.01.2025 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18 ALONG WITH THE CONSEQUENT DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AT ANNEXURE - A AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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:

" (a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other order or writ, quashing the impugned Assessment Order bearing DIN & Order No. ITBA/AST/S/144/2024-25/ 1071893305(1) dated 06.01.2025 for the Assessment Year 2017-18 along with the consequent Demand notice issued by the Respondent No.1 at Annexure - A; and (b) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other order or writ, quashing the Penalty Order passed u/s 271AAC (1) bearing DIN ITBA/PNL/F/271AACC(1)/2025-26/ 1079625021(1) dated 14.08.2025 for the Assessment Year

2017-18 along with the demand notice at Annexure-B.

(c) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other order or writ, quashing the Penalty Order passed u/s 270A bearing DIN No.ITBA/PNL/F/270A/2025-26/1079628485(1) dated 14.08.2025 for the Assessment Year 2017-18 along with the consequent Demand Notice at ANNEXURE-C; and (d) Grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner is the wife of one Milan Parikh, who expired on 08.05.2021. During his lifetime, respondent initiated proceedings, which culminated in several ex-parte assessment order as against the aforesaid late Milan Parikh, husband of the petitioner, aggrieved by which petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.26161/2023 and connected matters, which was allowed by this Court by setting aside the ex-parte assessment order as against the petitioner’s husband – Milan Parikh and remitted the matter back to the respondent for reconsideration afresh to the stage of petitioner submitting reply to the notice under Section 142 of the Income Tax Act.

4. In pursuance of the aforesaid remand order passed by this Court in W.P.No.26161/2023 and connected matters, respondent once again issued notice dated 14.11.2024 to the petitioner under Section 142(1) of the IT Act, to which also petitioner did not submit any reply, on account of which, respondent issued a Show Cause Notice dated 03.12.2024, to which also the petitioner did not submit any reply, as a result of which respondent proceeded to pass the ex-parte assessment order, aggrieved by which, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

5. Subsequently, the petitioner issued a reply to the penalty proceedings despite which the respondent passed the impugned penalty order dated 14.08.2025 by respondent No.1, which is also assailed in the present petition.

6. Learned counsel

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top