IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 57795 OF 2018 (T-IT)

BETWEEN:

RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES REP BY ITS REGISTRAR SRI SHIVANAND KAPASHI SON OF SRI BHIMAPPA KAPASHI AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 4^TH ‘T’ BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 041.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. A. SHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. S. ANNAMALAI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION CIRCLE – 1, UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 027.

2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 7(2)(1), BMTC BUILDING, Di gitally 80 FEET ROAD, 6^TH BLOCK, signed by KORAMANGALA, CHANDANA BENGALURU - 560 095.

B M …RESPONDENTS Location:

(BY SRI. E.I.SANMATHI, ADVOCATE)

High Court of Karnataka THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO NOT TO PASS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 143[3] OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 PURSUANT TO THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 143[2] OF THE INCOME -TAX ACT, 1961 BY THE R-2 AS ENCLOSED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A VIDE NOTICE DTD3.7.2017 FOR THE A.Y. 2016-17 AS ONE WITHOUT JURISDICTION.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’

GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL ORDER

In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:-

“ (a) Issue a writ of Mandamus or direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.1 to not to pass the assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 pursuant to the notice issued under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the respondent No.2 as enclosed and marked as Annexure-A vide Notice No. ITBA/AST/S/143(2)/2017- 18/1004779274(1) dated: 03.07.2017 for the A.Y.2016-17 as the one without jurisdiction.

(b) And pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity.”

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

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that on

17.10.2016, petitioner filed income tax returns for the Assessment Year– 2016-17 before the 1^st respondent, who has jurisdiction over the petition. Subsequently, on 31.03.2017, the petitioner filed revised returns before the 1^st respondent for the aforesaid assessment year. On 03.07.2017, the 2^nd respondent issued a notice under Section 143(2) of the I.T.Act proposing to pass an assessment order under Section 143(3) of the I.T.Act. The petitioner did not issue any reply to the said notice, subsequent to which, the 1^st respondent issued a notice dated 22.06.2018 under Section 142(1) of the I.T.Act followed by show cause notice dated 12.11.2018, to which, the petitioner submitted replies dated 17.11.2018, 20.11.2018 and 17.12.2018 putting forth various contentions including the contention that the notice under Section 143(2) of the I.T.Act not having been issued by the 1^st respondent but having been issued by the 2^nd respondent based on the original returns and not based on the revised returns dated 31.03.2017 filed by the petitioner, all further proceedings pursuant to the same are illegal and are liable to be dropped.

4. It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite the detailed replies submitted by the petitioner and the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the 1^st respondent is proceeding further in the matter for the purpose of passing assessment order under Section 143(3) of the I.T.Act, which is impermissible in law and as such, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

5. The respondents have filed their statement of objections to the petition and contend that the same is liable to be dismissed.

6. A perusal of the material on record referred to supra will indicate that it is an undisputed fact that subsequent to filing original returns by the petitioner on 1