Ms. Rekha Rani Balusu V. The Income Tax Officer and 4others

WP/37034/2022

AI Insights

The case involves a writ petition filed by Ms. Rekha Rani Balusu against several respondents including various officers of the Income Tax Department, challenging an assessment order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The petitioner contended that she did not receive any notice from the Income Tax Department, which led to the assessment being made without her input. The respondents argued that the petitioner failed to file a return of income, which necessitated a best judgment assessment. The court decided not to entertain the writ petition, suggesting that the petitioner should instead appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 691881 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 27-09-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K MAMATA CHOWDARY
• Assessee Lawyers: A V A SIVA KARTIKEYA
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Best Judgment Assessment; Income Tax; Natural Justice; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 139; 265; 226

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 37034 OF 2022 '1. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward - 11 6(P) of Kondapur, Sy. No. 37(P) o Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Telangana ('l), Hyderabad, Signature Towers, Sy. No. f Kothaguda, Opposite Botanical Gardens, Reddy District, Hyderabad - 500 084, 2. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward - 11(4), Hyderabad, Signature Towers, Sy. No. 6(P) of Kondapur, Sy. No.37(P) of Kothaguda, Opposite Botanical Gardens, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dastrict, Hyderabad - 500 084, Telangana 3. Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax / lncome Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Center, New Delhi, Room No. 4O1,2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, New Delhi - 1'10 003. 4. The Additional Commissioner of lncome Tax, Range -1 '1, Hyderabad lT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500044, Telangana 5. The Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax - 5, Hyderabad lT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500044, Telangana ..,RESPONOENTS 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 issued Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or Between: Ms. Rekha Rani Balusu, D/o Late. Mr. Tamineedi Surya Prakash Rao, aged 59 years, H. No. 16-31-620/404, Vl Phase, Sai Sri Laxmi Homes, Near Malaysian Town Ship, Kukatpally, Hyderabad - 500 072,Telangana. Resident ot. 11706, Washington Street, Kansas, 64114, United States of America. Represented by her Power of Attorney: Mr. G.Arun Kumar, S/o G.Sriramulu. ...PETITIONER AND Direction declaring the order passed under Sec. 147 r/w Sec. 144 of the lncome Tax Act, 961, dated 24.09.2021 , vide DIN and Order No. ITBA/AST/5114712021- 2211035873423(1), by the 1st Respondent, for the Assessment Year 20'17 - 18 as arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, void-ab-initio, violative of the principles of natural justice apart from being violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 265 of the Constitution of lndia and Sec 148 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961. lA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 stay further proceedings, including any recovery, pursuant to the order passed by the 'l st Respondent, under Sec. 147 r/w Sec. 144 of the Act, dated 24.09.202'l , vide DIN & Notice No. ITBA/AST/5114712021-2211035873423(1), for the Assessment Year 2017 - 18, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A. V. A. SIVA KARTIKEYA Counsel for the Respondents: Ms. K. MAMATA CHOWDARY, S.C. FOR INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT The Court made the following: ORDER AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHAS KAR REDDY ORDER: per the Hon'ble the Chief .Iustice ujjal Bhugan) Heard Mr. A.V.A.Siva Kartikeya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. K.Mamata Chowdary, learned Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department for the respondents. 2. Challenge made in this writ petition is to the assessment order dated 24.OT.2O2L passed by the l\"t respondent under Section l4Z of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (briefly ieferred to hereinafter as the.'ActJ read with section 144 thereof. 3. From a perusal of the assessment order which is more than a year crld, it is seen that petitioner who is an assessee ur.rder the Act did not file return of income for the \"assessment year 2O7Z-18 as is required under Section 139 of the Act. Therealter lsr respondent passed best judgment I t THE HON'BLE TH@EHUYAN WBIT PMIaION No.37OB4 of 2022 I HCJ & CVBRJ W.P.No.37034 o1' 2022 assessment under Section 144 of the Act making an addition of Rs.20,00,260.00 to the income of the petitioner' 4 . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner did not receive any notice from the Income Tax Department. The fact that Income Tax Department had sought for ne'*' E-mail ID of the petitioner itself would go to showthatnoticewasnotserveduponthepetitioner.He further submits that petitioner is presently a resident of United States of America' In the circumstances' he prays for remand of the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer' 5. We are afraid we cannot accede to such prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner' Whether notice has been served or not is the secondary issue' The first and foremost issue is that being an assessee under the Act' there is a corresponding duty on the part of the petitioner to submit return of income. Admittedly, no such return of income was filed compelling the Assessing Officer to resort to best judgment assessment. That apart, al order of assessment is 2 I I , HCJ & CVBRJ W.P.No.37034 of 2022 alt appealable order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 6. That being the position, we see no good ground to entertain the writ petition. Petitioner would be at liberty to file appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and if such appeal 1S filed, the same shall be considered in accordance with law. We have not expressed any opinion on merit and all contentions are kept open' 7 . Subject to the observations made above, Writ Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. B. As a sequel, miscellaleous applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. SD/-P.PADMANABHA RE ASSISTANT REGIS //TRUE COPY// SECTION FICER 1. One CC to SRI A. V. A SIVA KARTIKEYA' Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Ms. K. MAMATA CHOWDARY' S C' for lncome Tax Department loPUCl 3. Two CD CoPies. 4. One SPare CoPY 3 R To, MP BS I ,%, '-Y HIGH COURT DATED:2710912022 1r9 STATE O { oi ! 4 t frsaflfrl ORDER DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS tI sttltfl:L o .1 a WP.No.37034 ot 2022 r- (c ) e "