IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 19210 OF 2025 (T-IT)

BETWEEN:

1. M/S. NANDA FEEDS PRIVATE LIMITED NO.337/61, 2^ND FLOOR, 43^RD CROSS, 9^TH MAIN, 5^TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560041 (REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, NAVEEN KUMAR PASUPARTHY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS S/O P.S. NANDAKUMAR)

INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K.K.CHYTHANYA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. TATA KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)

Digitally AND:

signed by NAGAVENI Location: High 1. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, Court of CENTRAL RANGE- 1, III FLOOR, Karnataka C.R. BUILDING, QUEEN'S ROAD, BENGALURU - 560001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.M.DILIP, ADVOCATE)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH AS FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED BY AN APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR OTHERWISE, THE IMPUGNED PENALTY ORDER BEARING DIN ITBA/PNL/M/271DA/2025-26/1076454284(1) PASSED UNDER 27IDA OF THE IT ACT, DATED 26.05.2025 FOR THE IMPUGNED AY 2020-21, ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE A THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer:

"a. Quash as far as the Petitioner is concerned by an appropriate writ or order in the nature of Certiorari or otherwise, the impugned Penalty Order bearing DIN ITBA/PNL/M/271DA/2025- 26/1076454284(1) passed under 271DA of the IT Act, dated 26.05.2025 for the impugned AY 2020-21, enclosed as Annexure A;

b. Quash as far as the Petitioner is concerned by an appropriate writ or order in the nature of Certiorari or otherwise, the impugned Demand Notice bearing DINITBA/PNL/S/156/2025- 26/1076459151(1), issued under section 156 of the IT Act, dated 26.05.2025 for the impugned ay 2020-

21, enclosed as Annexure B;

And c. Grant such other reliefs as this Honourable Court may think fit including the costs of this writ petition."

2. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that this Court need not deal deep into the matter as the issue stands answered in the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. K.Umesh Shetty, [2025] 170 taxmann.com 748 (Karnataka), wherein the co-ordinate Bench held as under:

"6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Appeal papers as also the written submissions, we decline indulgence in the matter, for the following reasons:

6.1 Both the sides in all fairness agreed that the period of limitation within which the proceedings u/s 271-C of the 1961 Act that are to be completed is covered u/s 275(1)(c) and therefore, the same is reproduced:

“275.Bar of limitation for imposing penalties – (i) No order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be passed-…

(c) in any other case, after the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for the imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed, or six months from the end of the month in which action for imposition of penalty is initiated, whichever period expires later.”

Learned Panel Counsel submitted that the Law Maker’s intent is as clear as Gangetic Waters; the above provision prescribes a specific limitation period for accomplishing the penalty proceedings, once initiated; apparently, no limitation period is prescribed for initiation of such proceedings; penalty proceedings are initiated once the competent authority issues notice to the Assessee to show cause against the proposed levy of penalty; in the instant case, admittedly the initiation is unfettered by any statutorily imposed limitation and the order imposing penalty is well within the prescribed time and therefore, the ITAT grossly erred in relieving the Assessee from the penalty. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Asse