Srinivas Reddy Sudireddy V. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and 2 Others

WP/31747/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Srinivas Reddy Sudireddy, the petitioner, who challenged an assessment order passed by the Income Tax Department for the assessment year 2017-18. The order assessed the petitioner's total income at Rs. 24,35,26,500 and raised a demand of Rs. 40,63,48,293. The petitioner argued that he was not served any notice regarding the reopening of his assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, which led to the impugned order. The respondents contended that notices were duly served and the petitioner failed to comply. The court found that there was a general presumption of correctness in government orders and noted the availability of alternative remedies under the Income Tax Act for the petitioner to contest the assessment order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 753242 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 08-08-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SAPNA REDDY
• Assessee Lawyers: P SOMASEKHAR REDDY
• Keywords: Arbitrary; Assessment Order; Faceless assessment; Income Tax; Natural Justice; Unjustified; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 147; 144; 142(1); 246A; 226

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) IUONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:3 1747 0F 2022 Srinivas Reddv Sudiredd Business. R/o H.No i0 Telangana - 505001. Between: AND y, S/o Govardhan Reddy, Aged about 55 years, Occ; 3 37211, Hindupuri Cotony] Viava;;g;r, K;;i;;;\"r, ...PETITIONER 2 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Eighth Floor. Aayakar Bhavan, Opp. L B Stadium, Basheerbagh, HyOeranjO _\"SOO OO+. The Adtionall LoinU Oeputy / Assistant Commjssioner of lncome Tax/ rncome tax Uttrcer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, lncome Tax Department, 4th Floor, C Block, SpM Civic Center, ruew Delhi _ 110001. The^lncome Tax Officer, Ward 2, lncome Tax Office, Karimnagar, Telangana _ 505001 . 3 ...RESPONDENTS Petition Under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, tre uigrr 'Co'u; ;;y ;\" pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particurarry one in the nature of writ of mandamus, decraring the action of the Respondent rut.z i.e., ir,\" Assessing officer, in passing the impugned orJer ot. 2sto3r2oz2 for the Assessment year 2012_19 assessing total income of Assesse at Rs.24,35,26,500/- (Rupees Twenty-Four-Crore tfrirty_Five Lakhs i*\"niy .i, Thousand and Five Hundred) and \"on..qu\"nity raising Oemand -of T,1.1191.r-tf 93t J,Trqu\"_: Forty drore sixty rhree Latihs Forty\"eisht ihousano :y::llldt:g aq N,?\"ty Three) as being arbitrary. unjustified an-o allo asainst the pflncrptes 9t..na_t{al justice and consequenfly set aside the Order of the xespondent No.2/Assessing officer under Section 144 of the lncome Tax Act, 196 1 dated 3or03r2o22 to remit the assessment of the petitioner, uact< to ihe Respondent No.2/Assessing officer for assessing the case of the petitioner for the I J;! Assessment Yeat 2017-18 through a de-novo inquiry after giving opportunity to the Petitioner/Assessee to explain his case. l.A.NO:1 OF 2022 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 stay the impugned Order of the Respondent No.2, i..e. the Assessing Order dated 2510312022 for the Assessment Year 2017 -18 assessing total income of Assesse at Rs.24,35.26,5001 (Rupees Twenty-Four Crore Thirty-Five Lakhs Twenty six Thousand and Five Hundred) and consequently raising demand of Rs.40,63,48,293/- (Rupees Forty Crore Sixty Three Lakhs Forty eight Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety Three), pending disposal of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI.P.SOMA SEKHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : Ms.SAPNA REDDY The Court made the following ORDER l, THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICD UJJAL BHIIYAN AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.B HASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3 L747 of2O22 ORDER: eet 0&' Hon'ble te Chef Jttstice Ullol Bhugon) Heard Mr. P.Soma Sekhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Sapna Reddy, learned counsel lor the respondents. 2. Challenge made in this writ petition is to the legalitl' and validity ol the assessment order dated 25 'O3 '2022 passed by respondent No.2 under Section 147 read with Section 144 11448 ol the Income Tax Act, 1961 (briefly' 'the Act' hereinafter) for the assessment yeal 2Ol7-14' 3. Petitioner before us is an assessee under the Act having the status of individual' From the assessment order it transpires that petitioner did not Iile return for the assessment year under consideration' The case was taken up for reopening under Section 147 of the Act' whereafter lhe impugned assessment order was passed' I , I 4. Learne d counsel lor thc petitioner submit.s that no notice issued in conncction rvith the reopening r'r,as served upon the petitioner. Thcrefore, petitioner did not have any opportunity to contest the proceedings. He si.rbmits that the assessmr:nt order mat' be set aside and the matter remanrled back to the lile of respondent No.2. 5. We have perused the impugned order of assessment Paragraph 5 of the assessment order says that notices rvere issued undel Section 142(1) of the Act dated 13.11.2021 and 29.11.2021 and those n,ere served orr the assessee (petitioner) . However, there was no compliance. In paragraph 6 of the assessment order, a statement in tabular lorm has been furnished n'herein various dates of service of notices on the petitioner are mentioned. On that basis, it is stated that relerence was made to the verification unit to serve the notices issued previously to the petitioner through speed post. It is further stated that the notices were delivered to the assessee (petitioner) on lO .O2.2022 as per verification report. However, the petitioner did not reply. 6. There is a general presumption as to correctness of statements made in a government order. We have 6i rcasorl to clisbclieve the aforesard statemcnt of lact made by the assessing authority. That apart, challenge has been made to the order of asscssment. The said order is an appealable one under Sectior-r 246A of the Act where first round of appeal lies belore the Commissioner of Income Ta-x (Appeals). Thereafter, if the situation so warrants, t.here are provisions for lurther appeals before the Income Ta-x Appellate Tribunal as u'ell as to the High Court 7. Therefore, u,hen there is an adequate and efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition. B. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Miscellaneous applications pending, il any, shall stand closcd. Hou,ever, there shall be no order as to costs. SD/. G. ASSISTA IS //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER '1. One CC to SRI.P.SOMA SEKHAR REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Ms.SAPNA REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies 4. One spare copy ESHA TRAR To S.A GJP &sts HIGH COURT DATED:0810812022 ORDER WP.No.31747 ot 2022 DISMISSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. 15 otr firl ,) |: 1t .*a' dorNn v "