Sri P. Kamalakar Reddy (HUF) and Sri P. Dinakar Reddy (HUF) V. Union of India and The Assistant Commissioner (IT), Central Circle, Tirupati and The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Hyderabad

WP/6855/2005

AI Insights

The case involves two writ petitions filed by Sri P. Kamalakar Reddy (HUF) and Sri P. Dinakar Reddy (HUF) against the Union of India and other respondents, challenging the provisions of Section 54-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which allegedly discriminated against Hindu Undivided Families (HUFs) by not extending certain benefits. The petitioners argued that this exclusion was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees equality before the law. The High Court heard the petitions and noted that the legislature had amended Section 54-B after the petitions were filed, and the Appellate Tribunal had found the amendments to be clarificatory in nature. Consequently, the court allowed the petitioners to withdraw the writ petitions, emphasizing that the ongoing appeals could address the issues raised.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 820067 (HC-ANDHRA_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 09-09-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: B SARMA; VIJAY KUMAR PUNNA
• Assessee Lawyers: KARTHIK RAMANA PUTTAMREDDY
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Barred by limitation; Discriminatory; Hindu Undivided Families; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 226; 2(31); 2(7); 54-B

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT o & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO \" WRIT PETITION NO: 6821 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION NO: 6821 OF 2005 Between: Sri P. Kamalakar Reddy (HUF), S/o. P.L. Narasa Reddy, Aged about 57 Years, 14/91, Anamvari Street, Nellore. • ...PETITIONER AND 1. Union of India, Rep by its Secretary-Finance, New Delhi. 2. The Assistant Commissioner (IT), Central Circle, Tirupati. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction declaring that Section 54-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in so far as it does not extend the benefit to Hindu Undivided Families is vioalative of Article 14 of Constitution of India and discriminatory between similarly placed assesses as defined in Section 2(7) read with definition of person in Section 2(31) of the Income Tax Act,1961 or in the alternative to read down the Provision to mean that the word \"assessee\" used therein would also include Hindu Undivided Families as per Section 2(7) read with in Section 2(31) of the income Tax, 1961 and also set aside the assessment , ofdec dated 30-7-2004 as barred by limitation. . A: NOr 1 OF 2005(WPMP. NO: 9063 OF 2005) i T « ■ ■ ' Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including hearing of the appeal filed by the petitioner before the 3rd Respondent in Appeal No. 219/AC/CC/TPT/04-05, pending disposal of the Writ Petition as otherwise the petitioner will be put to severe loss the hardship. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KARTHIK RAMANA PUTTAMREDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI B. NARASIMHA SARMA, ADDITIONAL SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : SRI VIJAY KUMAR PUNNA WRIT PETITION NO: 6855 OF 2005 Between: Sri P. Dinakar Reddy (HUF), S/o. P.L. Narasa Reddy, Aged about 53 Years 14/91, Anamvari Street, Nellore. ...PETITIONER AND 1. Union of India, Rep by its Secretary-Finance, New Delhi. 2. The Assistant Commissioner (IT), Central Circle, Tirupati. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction declaring that Section 54-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in so far as it does not extend the benefit to Hindu Undivided Families is % V; vioalative of Article 14 of Constitution of India and discriminatory between similarly placed assesses as defined in Section 2(7) read with definition of person in Section 2(31) of the Income Tax Act,1961 or in the alternative to read down the Provision to mean that the word \"assessee\" used therein would also include Hindu Undivided Families as per Section 2(7) read with Section 2(31) of the Income Tax, 1961 and also set aside the assessment order dated 30-11-2004 as barred by limitation. I.A. NO: 1 OF 2005(WPMP. NO: 9107 OF 2005) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including hearing of the appeal filed by the petitioner before the 3^^ Respondent in Appeal No. 319/AC/CC/TPT/04-05, pending disposal of the Writ Petition as otherwise the petitioner will be put to severe loss the hardship. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KARTHIK RAMANA PUTTAMREDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI B. NARASIMHA SARMA, ADDITIONAL SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : SRI VIJAY KUMAR PUNNA The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER 1 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.6821 & 6855 of 2005 COMMON ORDER:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice G.Narendar) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the instant Writ Petitions are preferred challenging the vires provisions of Section 54-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Post institution of the Writ Petitions, the legislature brought about an amendment by way of amending the provisions of Section 54-B and that subsequently, a challenge mounted to the same. The Appellate Tribunal has held that the same is clarificatory in nature and in that view, the counsel for the petitioners be permitted to withdraw the Writ Petitions with a liberty to pursue the appeal, which came to be stayed by this Court, by an order, dated 31.03.2005. 2 3. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit has no instructions regarding the pendency of the appeal. Be that as it may, the submissions of the learned petitioners are placed on record. In the that he counsel for the event the appeal is pending, the question of reserving any liberty to further prosecute the pending appeal in our opinion is superfluous, as the disposal of the Writ Petitions and dissolution of the interim orders of stay would automatically revive and enable the Appellate Tribunal hear and dispose the pending appeal. to 4. In that view of the matter, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. The interim orders, dated 31.03.2005, granted earlier stands dissolved. It is open for the petitioners to prosecute the the same is pending as on date. appeal if 5. In the event, the appeal proceedings redundant or infructuous, liberty is granted to the petitioners to mount up the challenge to the vires of the amended provisions of Section 54-B. are rendered 3 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are ordered. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petitions shall stand closed. « VINOD KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Secretary-Finance, Union of India, New Delhi. 2. The Assistant Commissioner (IT), Central Circle, Tirupati. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Vijayawada. 4. One CC to Sri Karthik Ramana Puttamreddy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri Vijay Kumar Punna, Advocate [OPUO 6. One CC to Sri B. Narasimha Sarma, Additional Solicitor General of India (OPUC) 7. One CC to Sri J.V. Prasad, Advocate (OPUC) 8. Three C.D. Copies. Cnr HIGH COURT DATED:09/09/2024 COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.6821 & 6855 of 2005 g 0 I MAY ?0?fi I Current Section WRIT PETITIONERS IS ORDRED WITHOUT COSTS "