Lakshmi Techno Solutions Pvt., Ltd. V. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax and another

WP/21766/2022

AI Insights

Lakshmi Techno Solutions Pvt. Ltd. filed a writ petition challenging the legality and validity of an assessment order dated 31.03.2022, concerning the assessment year 2014-15. The petition contested the re-opening of the assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, arguing that the assessing officer failed to pass a speaking order after objections were raised and that the re-opening was beyond the permissible time frame without sufficient justification. The respondents, represented by the Income Tax Department, argued that the re-assessment order was appealable and thus not subject to challenge under Article 226. The court, after considering the arguments and the statutory provisions, dismissed the petition, advising the petitioner to seek redress through the available appellate mechanism.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 691865 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 27-04-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Mahesh Kumar Gupta v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Seshasayee Steels Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Transfer of Property Act, 1882
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K CHOWDARY; J V PRASAD
• Assessee Lawyers: Y RATHNAKAR
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Income Tax; Legal validity; Re-assessment; Writ petition
• Section: 147; 148; 143(1); 144(b); 149(1)(b); 226; 246 A

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA Between: Lakshmi Techno Solutions Pvt., Ltd., 1-10-127, Street No.9, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad 5OO O2O TS, (lndia), Rep. by its Managing Director, ^.r,r\"tu.Tr.r,r,o*r* AND 1. Dy.Commissioner of lncome Tax and another' Circle-S(1)' l'T Towers' A.C.Guards, HYderabad. Z. nOOt.rLoinVOedutylnCfi, ITO/ National Faceless Assessment :.??t!\"r\"o-B:l-r, Petition Under Article 226 of lrle Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in i;\"1il;;iilit-eo irrerewitr' the Hish court mav oe oleased to issue a writ in t\"ne\"n'i'i\" \"t Mlnoalu-s;:S:HiH'-t3l,,t'7tt\"l'\"J fffiio\"n,;;;iJrins that 1) the notice it:y\"9 0^'\",ll\"pANo.AAACLee43N on Ine Liiioroirznz'-\"'l':J.\"*\"J,lr1?J:;Fi.:1T\"li:.f iif ;.mliilil? oetitioner and 2) the utt\",\"#' o\"\"ii,\"ner,as iilegal,.1r,no ,,ldo.\"nt of Honouraote ior Asst.Year 2014-15 \"l:;;,i\"\"i'.i.oct, contrary to the judsmel^?,I,l\"*?JJJ'r\" l. ,i\"rrii\"\" of provisions-u;.; ; n)-tr,rr 1r.tii\":t ;\"*:f:;lrr$?i',13,,.\" Supreme court and- pn|!'i$;;d;;Je pursuant i,t3\"i;J''::ffi:1, :lJ#;:,\";; ;n*ioi'\"ubru in t'* i.A.NO: 1 OF 2022 1L^ ^ir^,,msrances stated ffixffH,lumHffiififfffi ?iltlli:ifi:\"ffi ls:ifi:I$iiltsD(scFoRrNcoMErAx) WRIT PETITION NO: 21766 OF 2022 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHI YAN AND HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA W.P.No.21766 of 2022 Order: (Per Hon'ble Si Justice Ujjal Bhugan) Heard Mr. Y. Rathnakar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. K. Mamatha Chowdary, learned counsel representing Mr. J.V. prasad, learned standing counsei for Income Tax for respondent. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the legality and validity of the assessment order dated 3I.03.2022, passed bv the respondent under Section 147 read with Section Income Tax Act, 196 1 (briefly .the Act, herein assessment year 2014_ lS. under Section 143 (1) of the Act. There /26.O3.2O21 was issued by the first respond 148 of the Act for re_opening of assessment. 3. petitioner had filed its return of income for the secon d 144 (B) of the after) for the said after notice dated ent under Section assessment year showing loss income, which was processed --.=: 2 4. The assessment order on.re-opening has been chalenged. by the petitioner, firstly on the ground that no speaking order was passed by the assessing officer after the petitioner had filed objection to the reasons for issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act. Second, contention is that the re-opening of assessment is after 4 years but before 6 years, in which event the assessing officer has to record the reason that income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likeiy to amount to Rs.one lakh or more in terms of Section 149 ( 1 ) (b) of the Act. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reiiance on a decision of the Allahabad High Court in MAHESH KUMAR GUFTA V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXr. Finally, on merit learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 53 (a) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 cannot be invoked in the case of the petitioner. To support his contention he has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in SESHASAYEE STEELS PRIVATE LIMTED V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX2. 1 (2014) 363 rrR 3oo 'Z (2020) 4zt rrR 46 (sc) 3 II 5. On the other hand, iearned standing counsei submits that the re-assessment order is an appealable one' There is no good reason to entertain the challenge thereto under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the materials on record 7 . Evidently, the impugned order of assessment has been passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 (Bl of the Act following the re-assessment proceedings. B. Section 246 (Al of the Act deals with appealable orders before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Section 246 (A) (1) (b) of the Act provides that an assessee aggrieved by an order of re-assessment under Section 147 of the Act may prefer appeat before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 9. Grounds urged in the Writ Petition do not commend to us to take a view that the order of re-assessment should be examined by us in exercise of our writ jurisdiction, when there ,zis a statutory remedy of appeal available to the petitioner which is adequate and efficacious. That being the position, we I 4 leave it oPen to the petitioner to seek his remedy of appeaf if so advised. However, we do not find aly good reason to entertain the writ Petition. 10. Subject to above, Writ Petition is dismissed' No costs' 11'Misceilaneousapplications,ifanypending,shallalso stand d1Sp OSed of. I //TRUE COPY' SD/.K.ONESIM ASSISTANT REGISTRAR sEcrro#FFrcER To S 1 3 4 .A . 3ffi 33 B BRli,?il[tffi#lb'f i-83M3''o*'toPuc] . Two CD CoPies . One sPare coPY fir^- I HIGH COURT DATED:27 t0412022 ORDER WP.No.21766 of 2022 DISMISSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS r,F- STAf€ 1 i, I ]}j i rl Jl]l{202? )L a) oEsea.rc*;C, { .rt h b t1 1)- . / --\"= . t9) _/ "