Sri Ganesh Temple V. The Union Of India

WP/1649/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Sri Ganesh Temple, represented by Sri Koppula Vinod, challenging a notice issued by the Income Tax Department under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, which directed Canara Bank to pay a sum of Rs.36,22,428 from the petitioner's account. The petitioner argued that the notice was illegal and arbitrary, especially since an interim stay application and an appeal against an original order were pending. The respondents contended that the petitioner had failed to appear despite repeated notices, leading to the issuance of the impugned order. The court, after considering the submissions and the procedural history, decided to dispose of the writ petition, directing the petitioner to appear for a personal hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 724233 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 24-01-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JITHENDER; A RADHA KRISHNA; A RAMA REDDY
• Assessee Lawyers: P RAMA SHARMA
• Keywords: Bank Account Attachment; Income Tax; Mandamus; Natural Justice
• Section: 226(3)

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION NO: 1649 OF 2024 [ 3379 ] its Executive 411, Pragathi ...PETITIONER Between: Sri Ganesh Temple, Regimental Bazar, Secunderabad, rep Officer, Sri Koppula Vinod, S/o (L) Ramachandra Reddy, 1 Nagar, Dilsukh Nagar, Hyderabad. AND by 1-6 1. The Union Of lndia, tVlinistry of Finance rep its Principal Secretary, New Delhi. 2. The Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax, Ayakar Bhavan, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad. 3. The Commissioner of lncome Tax (Exemptions), Ayakar Bhavan, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad. 4. The Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals), Ayakar Bhavan, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad. 5. The lncome Tax Officer, Exemption Ward 1(4), Ayakar Bhavan, Hyderabad. 6. The Branch Manager, Canara Bank, 9-1-7O,74,7511 , Sarojini Devi Road, Secunderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ot lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order or direction or Writ in the nature of Mandamus duly declaring lhe notice issued by the sth respondent herein dated 10.01.2024, Under Section 226(3) ot lncome Tax Act, to the 6th respondent asking to pay a sum of Rs.36,22,428t- from the account of the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, and against the principles of natural justice and consequently set askle the same in the interest of justice. L IA N(J: 1 ots 2024 Petition under section 'l 51 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 by the 5th respondent herein ddted 10.O1.2024, Under Section 226(3) of lncome Tax Act, to the 6th respondent asking to pay a sum of Rs. 36,22,4281- from the account of the petitioner and direct the 3rd respondent to payback to the petitioner if the 6th respondent Bank has already paid to the lncome Tax Department, in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P.RAMA SHARANA SHARMA counsel for the Respondent No.1: sRt JITHENDER FOR SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR Dy. SOLICITOR GEN. OF tNDtA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2,3 & 5: SRI A.RADHA KRISHNA, SC FOR CIT Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRt A.RAMA KRISHNA REDDY, SC FOR CIT Counsel for the Respondent No.6: - The Gourt made the following: ORDER l TIIE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAtId KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE N.TUKARAMJI W.P. No. 1649 of 2024 ORDER: per ao n'ble Sri Jltstice P.SAITI KOS$Y) Heard Mr.P.Rama Sharana Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Jithender, learned counsel appeared on behalf of Mr.Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, for respondent No. 1, Mr.A.Radha Krishna, learned Senior Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3, Mr.A.Rama Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4. Perused the material available on record. 2. The present writ petition has been hled assailing the order dated 10.O1.2024, passed by the respondents directing the Bank Manager, Canara Bank, Sarojini Devi Road, Secunderabad branch, to attach the bank account of the petitioners having PAN No. tuauAJS7244L. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that there was an order in original dated 10.08.2O2O, passed by the 2\"a respondent which has been subjected to challenge before the 4s respondent/Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal before the 4o respondent is still pending consideration. Meanwhile the petitioners have also moved an application for grant of interim stay, which is also pending consideration before the 3'd respondent. :-.:e-]: 2 4. However, the impugned order dated 10.01.2024 iras been passed invoking the provisions of section 226 (31 of the Income Tax Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the interim application is arready pending consideration as also the before the appellate authority, the respondents in fairness not have issued the impugned order dated 1O.O1.2O24, attaching the bank account of the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent opposing the petition submits that, it is a case where inspite of repeated reminders given to the petitioner, he has failed to enter appearance on his application and it is only thereafter, that the impugned order has been passed. 6. However, today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Standing Counsel of the Income Tax Department has produced an order of the 3rd respondents dated 22.O1.2024, issued to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner for a personal hearing on 3O.O7.2O24. The order furnished by the Standing Counsel of the Department is as of now taking on record. 7. Given the fact that the respondents have now issued yet another notice to the petitioner to enter appearance on 3O.OI.2O24, we are of the considered opinion tJ.at no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending as of now. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to enter appearance before 3rd respondent on 3O.O7.2O24, as noticed and no appeal should J further notice would be served to the petitioner for appearance on 30.O1.2024 in this regard. The respondent authorities upon hearing the petitioner, may pass appropriate orders on the interim application, against which the petitioner would be at liberg to avaii the appropriate legal recourse availabie to him. No order as to costs. 8. Meanwhile it is expected that the respondents shall intimate the Bank Authorities, in case if the bank account of the petitioner is not attached, they shall not attach the account of the petitioner till the interim application is decided. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- G.SIREESHA ASSISTANT //TRUE COPY// SECTIO OFFICER To '1 . The Principal Secretary, Union Of lndia, tvlinistry of Finance, New Delhi' Z. fne Cnietbommissioner of lncome Tax, Ayakar Bhavan' Basheer Bagh, Hvderabad. 3. Tfi C;mmissioner of lncome Tax (Exemptions), Ayakar Bhavan, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad. +. ifrE Corimissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals), Ayakar Bhavan, Basheer Bagh' Hyderabad. S. i6e income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward 1(4), Ayakar Bh-avan'-Hyderabad' o. onL cc to sRl P.RAMA SHARANA SHARMA, Advocate IOPU9I 7. on; aa io SHi GADI PRAVEEN KUIvIAR, Dv. SollclroR GEN. oF INDIA IOPUC] a. bne ci to snt A.RADHA KRISHNA, sc FoR clr{oP-ucl--..^- g: o* cc to snt A.RAMA KRISHNA REDDY, sc FoR clr [oPUC] 10.Two CD Copies PSK. GJ v ! HIGH COURT DATED:241O112024 ORDER WP.No.1649 of 2024 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS. b :.: j .l ( q ',' l, ,} 204 17 FEB o * * O6:S PATC ,x "