Muralikrishna Pothuguntla V. Income Tax Officer,

WP/4835/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Muralikrishna Pothu, the petitioner, challenging an assessment order and a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 12(1), Hyderabad. The petitioner sought to quash the notice and the subsequent assessment order, claiming they were issued without the necessary approval of the specified authority. The High Court had previously allowed the petitioner to raise objections during the assessment proceedings, which he did not do. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse, emphasizing the limited scope of interference on show cause notices and the availability of statutory remedies.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 752413 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 19-02-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: BOKARO SAPNA REDDY; GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: P SOMASHEKAR REDDY
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Income Tax; Jurisdictional issue; Writ of Mandamus; Legal Premises
• Section: 148; 151

Judgement Text

"[ 3/t46 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original JEiisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT PETITION NO: 4835 OF 2025 Between: Muralikrishna Pothu Business, 1HNo1- guntla, S/o. Pothuguntla Venkatrao Ag 1 0.Thimmaraopet(V).Chennaraopet(M) ed. About 43 years, Occ , Warangal, Telangana ...PETITIONER AND 1. lncome Tax Officer, Ward 12(1), Hyderabad Aayakar Bhawan, Opposite Lb Stadium, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad, Telangana, 500004 Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax- 1, lncome Tax Towers, Masab Tank, Hyderabad Union of lndia, Ministry of Finance Rep by its Secretary, 166-8, North Block, New Delhi - 110 001 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ol the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to l.lssue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly, one, in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, setting aside and quashing the notice issued u/s 148 dated 31 .03.2024 and the Assessment Order'dated 30.01.2025 passegl,\"against the Petitioner for the A.Y. 2020-21 as the same was issued without approval of the specified authority ll.Declare that the approval granted by the Specified Authority under Section 151 of the Act for the impugned notice as invalid and without legal effect. lll.set aside the Assessment order dated 30.0'1.2025 as the notice issued u/s 148 dated 31.03.2024 itself was bad in law. 2 3 ..',1] lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that rn the circ;umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Departmerrt not to take any further steps consequent to passing of the assessment order dated 30.O1.2025. Counsel for the Petitioner :SRl P.SOMA SngXAn REDDY counsel for the Respondents No.1&2 , lj?.?3H1\",,i35il,t Tiiit Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DY.SOL.GENERAL The Court made the following: ORDER i^: THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF'JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTIQ,E RENUI(A YARA WRIT PETITION No.48s5 ()F 2025 ORDER (per the Hon'bte the Acting Chief Justice): Heard Sri P.Soma Shekar Reddy' learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. Bokaro Sapna Reddy, Junior Standing Counsel for Income Tax for respondent Nos'l and 2 arrd Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for respondent No.3. 2. This is the second visit of the petitioner to this Court' Earlier, the petitioner filed W'P'No'2723 of 2025 against notice dated 31.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act' 1961 (for short, the Act)' The said Writ Petition was disposed of on 31.01.2025 by reserving liberty to the petitioner to raise all relevant objections in the pending assessment proceedings' 3. Now, the impugned assessment order dated 3O'01'2025 is called in question by contending that issuance of show cause notice itself is bad in law. In support of this submission, a number of decisions of the Supreme Court were cited' However' on a specific query from the Bench' learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that neither in reply to the show causN i 2 notice nor duLring the assessment proceedings, the petitioner raised objer:tion regarding jurisdiction. On the rstrength of these judgments, it is submitted that the objection of jurisdict.ion can be taken before ttLe Writ Court for the f,rrst time. 4. The other side submitted that the petitioner ha:; statutory remedy of a.ppt:al 5. In the.firsr- round itself in W.P.No.2723 of 2O25, the petition was not entertained and the petitioner was pernritted to raise all objections l:efr>re the authorities. Admittedly, the petrtioner has not raised any such objections by fi1ing reply to the show cause notice or during assessment proceedings. 6. The Ape.x Court in Special Director v\" Mohd. Ghulam Ghousel opined that the scope of interference on show cause notice is limiteC. It was held as under: \"5... Whether the show-cause notice was founde