Gorupally Sathish Reddy V. Union of India

WP/25629/2021

AI Insights

The case involves Gorupally Sathish Reddy, the petitioner, who challenged an assessment order dated 27.09.2021 issued by the Income Tax Department for the assessment year 2015-16. The petitioner, engaged in road construction, had subcontracted work to Siddhardha Constructions Private Limited. The assessment order was contested on the grounds that the subcontract agreement was not considered by the Assessing Officer. The court noted the absence of the subcontract agreement during the assessment but emphasized the availability of an appeal under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and thus dismissed the writ petition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 740639 (HC-HYDERABAD)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 18-10-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: NAMAVARAPU RAO; J V PRASAD
• Assessee Lawyers: K REDDY
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Income Tax; Natural Justice; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"HIAH COURT FOR IHE SI r+;;;'6,l5fi .l,tt#.n#f Ar HY D E R A, B AD I!,IONDAY,THEEIGHTFFNTI.JN^V/- r. ] ,wo rrb r.-f,lot il,frflf.\"r?t o c roB E R Between: AND 1. Gorupally Sathish Reddy, S/o. G. ^Tirupathi Reddy, Aged about 44 years, Occ. Bus.iness, Ryo. 3-6-262, Ftat No. +Oz, parimali-Ciitfei ssH bofonv,'V\"n-tl['i, LB Nagar, Saroornagar, Hyderabad - 500074. ...PETITIONER 2 !, Union of lndia, Ministry of Finance, lncome Tax Department, Nehru Place, New Delhi - 110019. lncome Tax Office, Ward l, Suryapet, Nalgonda District, State of Telangana. Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, lncome Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi - 1 1001 9. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction one in the nature of Writ of lrilandamus' a.call for records and quash the lmpugned order issued by the Respondent No. 2 and 3 to the Petitioner vide DlN. ITBA/AST/S/143(3)12021-2211035943718(1) dated 27 .09.2021 ',f or assessment year 201 5-1 6 as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Principles of Natural Justice IA NO: 10F 202'l Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support. of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense ,ritr, lting of certified ccipy of the lmpugned order jssued by the Respondent No. 2 and 3 to\"the petitioner vide DlN. ITBAAST/S/143(3)12021- 2211035943718(1) dated 27 .09.2021 for assessment year 2015-16' Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit iil\"J in .rpport of the petition, tne Fign Court may be pleased to suspend the rrprgn\"J oraer issued by thL Respondent No. 2 and 3 to the Petitioner vide DlN. tf3einsftslt+3(g)t2021- 22t1035943718(1) dated 27.09.2021 for assessment year 2015-16, during the pendency of this Writ Petition' Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. K PRATIK REDDY C\"r\"i\"f forthe Respondent No. 1:SRl' NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO' ASST' SOLICITOR GENERAL C.*\"\"f for the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3: SRI' J'V' PRASAD' SC FOR lT lA NO: 2 oF 202',1 The Court made the following: PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA THE HoNoURABLE SRIIut}BE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY WR|T pETtTtON NO: 25629 OF 2021 and w t Petit10n o.25629 ofZ021 Ofdef : (Per the llon'hle the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma) The petitioner before this Coun has filed the present Petition being aggrieved bythe assessment order dated 27 .09.2021. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that he is in the business of constmction of roads and he has carried on certain works in terms of sub-contract agreement executed in favour of Siddhardha Constructions Private Limited, but vdthout going through the said sub-contract agreemenr, which is on record as Ex.P.Z, the fusessing Officer has passed the order of assessmenr. 3. Leamed counsel for the petitioner was fair enough in stating before this coun that the sub-contract agreement was not placed before the Assessing Officer. 4. In the considered opinion of this Coun, as there is a statutory remedy of appeal available to the petitioner under the Income Tax Act, 196t (for short 'the Act), the present petition stands disposed of with libery to the petitioner to prefer an appeal in accordance with law by raising all the grounds as raised in the present petition and all other possible grounds that maybe available to him under the Act. ( The Hon'ble The Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma 5. Wth the aforesaid ltbety, the wit petition is dismrssed. Gnsequently, lnterlocutory Appfications, pending if any, stand disposed of. SD/-N.CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / ,TRUE COPY// 6, SECTION OFFICER To, 1. One CC to Sri. K Pratik Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri. Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, Asst. Solicitor General [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. J.V. Prasad, SC for lT (OPUC) 4. Two CD Copies. PM & HIGH COURT DATED:18/10/20 21 ORDER WP.No.25629 ol 2021 Dismissing the WP Without costs. fi..n'o'o'o a 2I osl,,o?l o ( o / t Aav 2/ 5 ,, "