Shaik Karimunnisa V. The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax

WP/35753/2024

AI Insights

The case involves a writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the actions of the Income Tax Department, specifically the issuance of a notice under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent orders that led to the seizure of multiple bank accounts and attachment of immovable property. The petitioner argued that these actions were taken without following the due process required under the Income Tax Act and were thus illegal and arbitrary. The court found that the notice and subsequent orders were indeed defective as they did not comply with the statutory requirements, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 690181 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 27-01-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: B SAPNA REDDY; J V PRASAD
• Assessee Lawyers: SRI KESHAVA
• Keywords: Cryptic notice; Due Process; Income tax recovery; Natural Justice; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 14; 19; 265; 226(3)

Judgement Text

"[ 34461 HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Speciat Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT PETITION NO:35 753 0F 2024 Between: 9lrg![5gr!!,]\"nisa, D/o. gattar, Aged about. 4t years, Occ. private, R/o.H.No.8_2_ 3031IB2|N435A, Ptot No.374, Jubir6e Hiils, noao.rio.i,-snjt pet, HvJ\"ra!\"J0. ''-' .....PETITIONER AND t. The Pring]Oal Chief Commislioner of lncome Tax, Ap and TS, 1Oth Floor, C Block lT Towers, 1023, AC Guards, Hyderabad, ietingJna.-' 2. Tax Recovery Officer-1 , O/o pClT-.l, Hyderabad. 3. The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle 6 (1), Hyderabad, Telangana. 4. The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle 14 (,1 ), Hyderabad, Telangana. .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of rhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, direction order or orders, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondent.No.2 in issuing the impugned Notice issued uts 226(3) on d1.05.03.2024 directing the Bank Manager, Central Bank of lndia to pay an amount of Rs.1,74,34 ,8221_ and seizing multiple bank accounts of the petitioner and subsequent order of attachment of Petitioners immovable property in FoRM.No.l.T.c.p.16 on d1.26.11.2024 prohibiting and restraining the petitioner from performing. any l transactions pertaining to the property of the petitioner without providing the relevant documents necessary rerating to the impugned orders inspite of Petitioners representation dt.10.12.2024 submitted to Respondent.No.2 & 3, without following due process of raw contemprated under provisions of second Schedule of lncome-Tax Proceed in g s )Ru les, 1962 proceedings contemplated Act 1 96 1 as well as lncome Tax (Certificate and different provisions pertaining to recover under lncome-Tax Act 1961 as illegal, arbitrary, against principres of naturar justice and in violation of petitioners right guaranteed under Art 14, 19 and 265 of the Constitution of lndia and consequenfly set aside the same l.A.NO:1 OF 2024 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 suspend the impugned Notice issued uts 226(3) on d1.05.03.2024 directing the Bank Manager, Central Bank of lndia to pay an amount of Rs.1,74,34 ,822t_ and orders seizing murtipre bank accounts of the petitioner and subsequent order of attachment of petitioners immovable property in FORM.NO. I.T.C.p.16 on dt.26.11.2024 pending disposal of the main writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner : SRI SIRIPURAM KESHAVA 91yf:Lf:lltr. Respondents : Ms. B.SApNA REDDY, JUNTOR STANDTNG COUNSEL FOR INCOME TAX DEPARTMEU TONENI J.V.PRASAD, SEN,OR SC FOR INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT The Court made the following ORDER l I THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA ItrRIT PETITION No.35753 of 2024 ORDER (Per the Hon'ble the Acttng Chief Justice Sujog Paul) Sri Siripuram Keshava, Iearned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.B.Sapna Reddy, learned Junior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department appears for Sri J.V.Prasad, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department, for respondents. 2. With the consent, finally heard 3. During the course of hearing, it is pointed out that the Form No.l.T.C.P. 16, dated 26.11.2024, IS cryptic and not inconsonance with Rules 2 and 3 of the Second Schedule of Procedure for Recovery of Tax under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short \"the Act\"). Similarly, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the document dated 13.O3.2024, (Annexure P.2), wherein it is mentioned that notices served through speed post have been unserved and returned. Thus, it is submitted that statutory certificate under Form ITCP- 1 is defective and cryptic in nature and therefore, even assuming that there was any service through E-mail will not serve any t 2. purpose and the respondents may be directed to furnish a proper Form ITCP- 1 and proceed in accordance with law. 4. karned Junior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department opposed the prayer and submits that although, in the Form ITCP.No.1 dated 26.10.2022 (Annexure P.8), the certificate number is not mentioned, it can be gathered from the document in Form No.I.T.C.P. 16, dated 26.1I.2024 (Annexure P.1). 5. We have heard the parties at length on this aspect. 6. Rules 2 and 3 of the procedure mentioned in the Second Schedule of Procedure for Recovery of Tax under the Act makes it clear about the manner in which the certificate is to be drawn-up. If the certifrcate is tested on the anvil of statutory Rules 2 and 3 of the procedure for Recovery of Tax a-foresaid, it will be clear that learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly pointed out that it does not contain necessary information including the period, certificate number, date and description of tax recovery officer, etc. 7. The subsequent proceedings founded upon the aforesaid Form, dated 26.10.2022, cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. 8. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 26.11.2024 is set aside. Liberty is reserved to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner, in accordance with iaw. The petitioner shall appear before respondent No.2 on 10.04.2025, for which, no separate notice will be required to be issued. The said authority sha1l proceed therefrom in accordance with law. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. A. SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECT N OFFICER To SA/ 1. The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax, AP and TS, 1Oth Floor, C Block lT Towers, 1023, AC Guards, Hyderabad, Telangana. 2. The Tax Recovery Officer-1, O/o PCIT-1, Hyderabad. 3. The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle 6(1),Hyderabad, Telangana. 4. The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle 14(1), Hyderabad, Telangana. 5. One CC to SRI SIRIPURAM KESHAVA, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to SRI J.V.PRASAD (Sr. SC FOR INCOIUE TAX) Advocate [OPUC] 7 . Two CD Copies BN w J I I HIGH COURT DATED:27 tO1t2O2S ORDER WP.No.35753 of 2024 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. ( 1 HE SI4 11F[,t 2025 z ) * * sPatc 06 W I "