Rajesh Kumar Jain v. Income Tax Officer

e -e1e-eeeee e e NC:(2026:KHC:22840 WP(No.(13085(of(2026 IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU( THDATED(THIS(THE(25 (DAY(OF(APRIL,(2026( BEFORE( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(S(SUNIL(DUTT(YADAV( WRIT(PETITION(NO.(13085(OF(2026((T-IT) BETWEEN:( RAJESH,KUMAR,JAIN,, AGED,ABOUT,52,YEARS,, S/O,GHEWAR,CHAND,JAIN,, 40/1,,OSIYA,NIVAS,, SEETHARAM,MANDIR,ROAD,, SUNKALPT,, BANGALORE,-,560,002., PAN:,ABVPJ0011C., …PETITIONER, (BY,SRI.,RAVI,SHANKAR,S,V.,,ADVOCATE), AND:

1., INCOME,TAX,OFFICER,, Digitally WARD,-,5(2)(1),, signedtiby BANGALORE,-,560,095., VIJAYA0P Location: HIGH 2., NATIONAL,FACELESS,ASSESSMENT,CENTRE,, COURT0OF ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT, KARNATAKA COMMISSIONER,OF,INCOME,TAX/INCOME,, TAX,OFFICER,,, INCOME,TAX,DEPARTMENT,, MINISTRY,OF,FINANCE,, NDROOM,NO.401,,2 ,FLOOR,,E-RAMP,, JAWAHARLAL,NEHRU,STADIUM,, DELHI,-,110,003., …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.,THIRUMALESH,,ADVOCATE),

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144B OF THE ACT, DATED 19/03/2026 VIDE DIN ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2025-26/108757269(1) PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2024-25 HEREIN MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER

Learned counsel, Sri. Thirumalesh accepts notice for the respondents.

¶2The petitioner has challenged the assessment order at Annexure-A. It is the case of the petitioner that the authority has proposed a variation on the ground that the petitioner was not entitled to benefit of capital gain as provided under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

¶3It is the case of the petitioner that the property that was purchased by the petitioner was a residential property and only consequent to its demolition, the petitioner has put up certain residential construction and

said aspect has not been looked into appropriately by the authority which has recorded a finding that the properties purchased consisted of factory shed and was not a residential property.

¶4The petitioner has produced at Annexure-G series the satellite images from Google, which according to the petitioner would indicate that the property purchased was residential property. It is submitted that on this sole ground, the matter may be remitted back providing an opportunity to the petitioner to place the Google images obtained from the website, which are publicly verifiable and afford an opportunity to the petitioner to demonstrate eligibility for deduction under Section 54F.

¶5Insofar as addition regarding unsecured loans, petitioner submits that opportunity may be granted for the petitioner to demonstrate the loan status.

¶6Perused the order at Annexure-A. The authority has disentitled the deduction under Section 54F by

recording the finding that the properties consisted of factory shed and not residential property. As noticed above, petitioner's assertion that the properties were infact residential and reliance placed on the images obtained from the website at Annexure-G series is an aspect that could be re-looked into by the assessing authority.

¶7Insofar as the other contention regarding unsecured loans, the petitioner submits that he would demonstrate the sources. Taking note of the factual nature of assertion made, it would be appropriate to remit the matter for reconsideration of the order at Annexure-A.

¶8Accordingly, the order at Annexure-A is set aside. Matter is remitted to the stage of 142(1) notice dated 12.12.2025. Annexures-A1 and A2 are consequently set aside. All contentions on merits are kept open.

¶9The observations made herein are limited for disposal of the present petition and are not to be taken as conclusive findings on the merits of the matter.

Accordingly, petition is disposed of.

SD/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE MCR