Singe Gowda Rathna Ravi Vs ACIT (Karnataka High Court)
“Wrong Section” Is No Shield Against a Rightful Demand: Karnataka HC Directs Compliance With Notice u/s 142(1) Read With Sections 158BC & 158BD
Summary: The Karnataka High Court considered a writ petition challenging notices issued under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, calling for accounts and documents following a search. The Court’s substantive discussion refers to the first notice as dated 10.04.2026 and the subsequent notice as dated 20.05.2026, while the prayer portion of the petition reproduced in the order describes the first notice as dated 10.04.2025.
The search proceedings were already the subject matter of W.P. No.4850/2025 [T-IT] and connected matters. The petitioner challenged the authority to call for further documents, contending that once search-related proceedings were pending, further requisition of documents should be under Section 153C. The petitioner also alleged that the notice pre-determined a disallowance by proceeding on the premise that it represented undisclosed income for the block period between 01.04.2018 and 13.01.2025.
The Revenue submitted that the communication was not a notice simplicitor under Section 142(1), but had to be read with Sections 158BC and 158BD governing the block period. It also denied that the notice reflected any pre-determination.
The High Court declined to determine the Section 142(1) jurisdiction issue at that stage. It found that it was not in dispute that the Department could call for details necessary to complete the assessment proceedings. The Court also gave substantial weight to the petitioner’s statement in the connected search proceedings that he would seek early closure and would cooperate with the officers.
On 16.06.2026, in W.P. No.4850/2025 [T-IT], the Court had taken that statement on record and directed the petitioner to cooperate, while requiring the officers to endeavour to complete the proceedings expeditiously and place the outcome before the Court. The connected petitions were directed to be listed on 06.08.2026.
Against that background, the Court held that where the authority to call for accounts and documents was not disputed and the petitioner had sought expedited completion, he was required to produce the documents “without a quibble on the section referred to.” The petition was therefore disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner to produce the requested accounts and documents within two weeks. The Court expressly clarified that such production would not prejudice the petitioner in the pending writ petitions or otherwise.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
The petitioner’s grievance is with the Notice dated 10.04.2026 issued under Section 142 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short, the Act’] calling for the accounts and documents in terms of the annexures appended thereto after a search.
The search proceedings are subject matter of writ proceedings in W.P.No.4850/2025 [T-IT] and connected matters. Ms. Jenita Chatterjee, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has a two-fold canvass in support of the petitioner’s grievance with the Notice.
- First, the jurisdiction under Section 142(1) of the Act would only be before Show Cause Notice is issued, but in the present case the proceedings after a search are pending and if any further documents must be called for, the jurisdiction would only be under Section 153C of the Act.
- Second, the respondent has pre-determined the issue, and this is seen with the petitioner being called upon to show cause against a certain disallowance in the premise that it is undisclosed income for the block period between 01.04.2018 and 13.01.2025.
2. Sri Y. V. Raviraj, the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent, submits that this is not a Notice simplicitor under Section 142(1) of the Act, but it is a Notice that should be read along with Section 158BC and 158BD of the Act for the block period. The learned Senior Standing Counsel also denies the assertion that there is pre-determination in issuing the show cause notice.
3. On the question of jurisdiction to issue Notice under Section 142(1) of the Act, this Court is of the view that this aspect need not detain this Court at this stage as it is not in dispute that the respondent could indeed call for the details to complete the assessment proceedings, and more crucially, in the pending writ proceedings in W.P.No.4850/2025 [T-IT], which relates to the search from which the present proceedings emanate, a statement is made before this Court on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner would request for an early closure of the pending proceedings and that if the petitioner’s explanations are accepted in such proceedings, the petitioner may not pursue for a decision presented in that and the two other petitions.
4. In fact, on 16.06.2026 when the afore submissions are made in W.P.No.4850/2025 [T-IT], this Court, taking on record such submissions, has observed that the petitioner shall co-operate with the officers in the pending proceedings, who shall endeavour to complete the proceedings expeditiously and place the outcome of the proceedings on the next date of hearing. The petition in W.P.No.4850/2025 [T-IT] and the other two petitions are directed to be listed on 06.08.2026. If the jurisdiction to call for accounts and documents are not in dispute and if there is a direction because of a statement made on behalf of the petitioner for an expedited closure of the proceedings, the petitioner must produce those accounts and documents without a quibble on the section referred to.
As such, the petition stands disposed of accordingly reserving liberty to the petitioner to produce the accounts and documents as sought for over the next two [2] weeks. It is needless to observe that production of accounts and documents in terms of this Notice cannot prejudice the petitioner in the pending writ petitions or otherwise.
