Rajiv Gandhi University of Knowledge Technologies, V. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption),

WP/10002/2025

AI Insights

The case involves the Rajiv Gandhi University of Knowledge Technologies (IIIT, Ongole), which filed a writ petition against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Hyderabad, and the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ongole. The petitioner sought to declare the order dated 17.02.2025 as illegal, unreasonable, unjust, and violative of principles of natural justice and certain articles of the Constitution. The dispute arose from the financial transactions and subsequent tax assessments related to the petitioner institution, which had not filed income returns until the financial year 2019-2020. The Income Tax Department issued notices for reopening the assessment, which led to the petitioner filing an appeal and a stay petition. The court decided not to delve deeply into the specifics of the case, given that an appeal was already pending, and provided directions for the Appellate Authority to expedite the hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 759193 (HC-ANDHRA_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 22-04-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Writ Petition No.9431 of 2025
• Laws Referred To: Rajiv Gandhi University of Knowledge Technologies Act No.18, Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Applicant
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: Y N VIVEKANANDA
• Assessee Lawyers: GVN HARI
• Keywords: Assessment Reopening; Conditional stay; Faceless assessment; Income Tax; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 148; 148A(b); 148A(d); 151A; 3(2)

Judgement Text

"Contd… APHC010191602025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3526] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No:10002 of 2025 Between: Rajiv Gandhi University of Knowledge Technologies, (IIIT, Ongole) Near Pernamitta, Ongole – 523225. Represented by its Director. ...Petitioner AND 1. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Hyderabad 2. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ongole ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. G V N Hari Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. Y N Vivekananda (Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department) The Court made the following order: (per NJS,J) The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:- “…to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the order dt.17.02.2025 bearing DIN:ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-2025/1073354772(1) passed by the 1st Respondent i.e. the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Hyderabad is illegal, unreasonable, unjust and violative of principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution and consequently to quash the order dt.17.02.2025 and to pass such other order or further orders…” NJS,J & TRR,J W.P No.10002 of 2025 2 Contd… 2. The writ petitioner herein was constituted under Section 3(2) of Rajiv Gandhi University of Knowledge Technologies Act No.18 vide G.O Ms. No.48 dated 20.07.2016 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. It is an autonomous constituent institute and body corporate and having perpetual succession and a common seal. The primary objective of establishing the institution is to provide high quality education opportunities for the rural youth of Andhra Pradesh. 3. During the financial year 2017-2018, the petitioner institute received a sum of Rs.50 Crores on 09.03.2018 from RGUKT and the said sum was deposited in the back account of the petitioner institution. Out of the same, a sum of Rs.36.90 Crores was invested in fixed deposits during the period from 02.05.2018 to 28.09.2018. Likewise, different sums were deposited in fixed deposits. The petitioner institution did not file its return of income from inception till the financial year 2019-2020 and the first return was filed in the Assessment Year 2021-2022. The respondent No.2 issued a notice under Section 148A (b) dated 04.03.2023, to show case as to why the assessment for 2019-2020 shall not be reopened. The petitioner institution, however, had not submitted any reply. The order under Section 148A (d) of the Act came to be passed and subsequently a notice under Section 148 for reopening of the assessment was also issued. 4. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that subsequently the assessment proceedings were transferred to the National Faceless Assessment Centre and the assessment was finally completed in faceless mode. He submits that the petitioner in response to the notice, served on 01.03.2024, submitted its reply giving the details of the institute, received amounts from the students by way of tuition fee and hostel fee etc. Be that as it may. 5. He submits that the petitioner in the said circumstances preferred an appeal against the assessment order before the National Faceless Appeal NJS,J & TRR,J W.P No.10002 of 2025 3 Contd… Centre on 10.10.2024 and filed a stay petition before the respondent No.1. He submits that instead of considering the matter and exercising the discretion, the respondent No.1 passed an order dated 17.02.2025, granting stay of collection of demand till 31.12.2025 or till disposal of the appeal, whichever is earlier subject to the payment of 20% of the outstanding demand which works out to Rs.13.33 lakhs. He also submits that in fact, the proceedings initiated are not sustainable in as much as the foundation of the assessment order lies in the notice dated 30.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act by the Income Tax Officer, Andhra Pradesh and the said officer has no jurisdiction to issue such notice in view of the ‘E-assessment of income escaping assessment scheme’ notified with effect from 29.03.2022 in terms of Section 151A of the Act. He submits that in similar circumstances, writ petitions were filed and interim stay of collection of demand, were granted. 6. Mr. Y N Vivekananda, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department, on the other hand, made submissions to sustain the order dated 17.02.2025. He submits that the 1st respondent in exercise of his discretion, after considering the aspect that the writ petitioner needs to be distinguished with other profit making entities was justified in granting conditional stay, on payment of 20% of the outstanding demand and the same is reasonable. He also submits that the petitioner having preferred the appeal before the Appellate Authority ought to have waited for the outcome of the same and in the meanwhile, complied with the orders under challenge. He seeks to dismiss the writ petition by making the said submissions. 7. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. 8. Though several grounds were raised in the writ petition with reference to the proceedings initiated against the petitioner which is an institution NJS,J & TRR,J W.P No.10002 of 2025 4 imparting education, this Court deems it not appropriate to go into the details, at length. Admittedly, the appeal is pending before the Appellate Authority. In the similar circumstances, this Court has passed orders in Writ Petition No.9431 of 2025. 9. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of, providing that the Appellate Authority shall pass appropriate orders in the appeal preferred by the petitioner, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible. Pending disposal of the appeal, no coercive action for collection of the demand/installments shall be initiated. The petitioner is at liberty to file additional material, if any, before the Appellate Authority. 10. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date:22.04.2025 Ksj "