1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF MARCH 2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV

WRIT PETITION No.13326/2014 (T-IT)

BETWEEN:

Sri Aroon Raman,

S/o V. Raman,

Aged about 53 years,

Residing at

No.100, Paramahamsa Road,

Yadavagiri,

Mysore - 570 020.

… Petitioner

(By Sri S.S. Naganand, Senior Advocate for

Sri Prashanth Murthy, Advocate)

AND:

1.

Union of India,

Department of Revenue,

Ministry of Finance,

Government of India,

North Block,

New Delhi - 110 00

Through the Secretary.

2.

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,

Circle - 1(2), No.55/1, 2^nd Floor,

'Shilpashree', Opp. Sterling Talkies,

Vishweshwaranagar,

Mysore - 570 008.

… Respondents

(By Sri Jeevan J. Neeralgi, Advocate)

2

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the

Constitution of India, praying to quash communication dated

10.03.2014 vide Annexure-Y issued by the R-2 and etc.

This Writ Petition coming on for orders this day, the Court

made the following:

ORDER

The

petitioner

has

called

into

question

the

communication at Annexure-Y dated 10.03.2014 whereby

the objections of petitioner relating to the issuance of notice

under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('I.T. Act'

for brevity) on the ground that no notice issued under

Section 143(2) of I.T. Act has been rejected.

2.

Sri

S.S.Naganand,

learned

Senior

Counsel

appearing for Sri Prashanth Murthy for the petitioner would

submit that the initiation of proceedings under Section 148

is not sustainable and draws attention to the intimation

under Section 143(1) of I.T. Act as made at an earlier point

of time as regards to the Assessment Year 2007-2008.

3.

It is further submitted that the question of

initiating proceedings under Section 148 is not sustainable

and that notice under Section 143(2) is required to have

3

been issued so also the procedure of regular assessment

ought to have been followed insofar as the Department

seeks to treat the income which the petitioner has not made

subject matter for assessment as one which is undisclosed

income.

4.

Insofar as the requirement of issuance of notice

under Section 143(2) of I.T. Act, the attention is drawn to

the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Assistant

Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Hotel Blue Moon

reported in (2010) 321 ITR 362 (SC) and it is pointed out

that in case of income escaped from assessment, the

procedure, including notice under Section 143(2) of I.T. Act

ought to have been issued.

5.

Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue does

not dispute the position as regards to the law laid down by

the Apex Court in the case of Hotel Blue Moon (supra).

6.

Without adverting to the other facts in issue

while noting that the time prescribed under the Proviso to

4

Section 143(2) of I.T.Act being mandatory and noticing that

admittedly, as per the communication at Annexure-Y dated

10.03.2014, the Authority has taken a stand that notice

under Section 143(2) of I.T. Act is not required, the same

being contrary to the judgment of Apex Court in the case of

Hotel

Blue

Moon

(supra),

the

communication

at

Annexure-Y dated 10.03.2014 is set aside.

The petition is disposed off accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE

VGR