Ms. Rekha Rani Balusu vs. The Income Tax Officer and 4others

PDF · subscribers
WP/37034/2022HC TelanganaHBHC01054607202227 September 2022Author: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN6 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition. The Court held that the primary issue was the petitioner's statutory duty as an assessee to file a return of income, which she admittedly failed to do for Assessment Year 2017-18. This failure compelled the Assessing Officer to resort to a best judgment assessment under Section 144 of the Act. The Court also noted that an order of assessment is an appealable order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Therefore, the Court found no good ground to entertain the writ petition and directed the petitioner to file an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), stating that any such appeal would be considered in accordance with law. The Court explicitly mentioned that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and all contentions were kept open. The operative direction was the dismissal of the writ petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ms. Rekha Rani Balusu, an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961, failed to file a return of income for Assessment Year 2017-18. Consequently, the Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(1), Hyderabad (the 1st respondent), passed a best judgment assessment order under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Act on September 24, 2021. This order resulted in an addition of Rs. 20,00,260.00 to the petitioner's income. The petitioner, who is a resident of the United States of America, challenged this assessment order by filing a writ petition before the High Court of Telangana, seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the order as arbitrary, illegal, and void. The petitioner also sought a stay on further proceedings, including recovery, pursuant to the assessment order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2017-18, is arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, void-ab-initio, and violative of the principles of natural justice and constitutional provisions, as contended by the petitioner. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that she did not receive any notice from the Income Tax Department, evidenced by the department seeking her new email ID. She further stated that being a resident of the USA, the matter should be remanded to the Assessing Officer. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by Ms. K. Mamata Chowdary, Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department, did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment. However, the court's reasoning implies that the primary issue was the petitioner's failure to file a return of income and the availability of an alternative remedy.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 139,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 37034 OF 2022 '1. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward - 11 6(P) of Kondapur, Sy. No. 37(P) o Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Telangana ('l), Hyderabad, Signature Towers, Sy. No. f Kothaguda, Opposite Botanical Gardens, Reddy District, Hyderabad - 500 084, 2. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward - 11(4), Hyderabad, Signature Towers, Sy. No. 6(P) of Kondapur, Sy. No.37(P) of Kothaguda, Opposite Botanical Gardens, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dastrict, Hyderabad - 500 084, Telangana 3. Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax / lncome Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Center, New Delhi, Room No. 4O1,2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, New Delhi - 1'10 003. 4. The Additional Commissioner of lncome Tax, Range -1 '1, Hyderabad lT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500044, Telangana 5. The Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax - 5, Hyderabad lT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500044, Telangana ..,RESPONOENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issued Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or Between: Ms. Rekha Rani Balusu, D/o Late. Mr. Tamineedi Surya Prakash Rao, aged 59 years, H. No. 16-31-620/404, Vl Phase, Sai Sri Laxmi Homes, Near Malaysian Town Ship, Kukatpally, Hyderabad - 500 072,Telangana. Resident ot. 11706, Washington Street, Kansas, 64114, United States of America. Represented by her Power of Attorney: Mr. G.Arun Kumar, S/o G.Sriramulu. ...PETITIONER AND Direction declaring the order passed under Sec. 147 r/w Sec. 144 of the lncome Tax Act, 961, dated 24.09.2021 , vide DIN and Order No. ITBA/AST/5114712021- 2211035873423(1), by the 1st Respondent, for the Assessment Year 20'17 - 18 as arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, void-ab-initio, violative of the principles of natural justice apart from being violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 265 of the Constitution of lndia and Sec 148 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961. lA 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 further proceedings, including any recovery, pursuant to the order passed by the 'l st Respondent, under Sec. 147 r/w Sec. 144 of the Act, dated 24.09.202'l , vide DIN & Notice No. ITBA/AST/5114712021-2211035873423(1), for the Assessment Year 2017 - 18, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A. V. A. SIVA KARTIKEYA Counsel for the Respondents: Ms. K. MAMATA CHOWDARY, S.C. FOR INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

The Court made the following: ORDER

AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHAS KAR REDDY ORDER: per the Hon'ble the Chief .Iustice ujjal Bhugan) Heard Mr. A.V.A.Siva Kartikeya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. K.Mamata Chowdary, learned Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department for the respondents.

2.

Challenge made in this writ petition is to the assessment order dated 24.OT.2O2L passed by the l"t respondent under Section l4Z of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (briefly ieferred to hereinafter as the.'ActJ read with section 144 thereof.

3.

From a perusal of the assessment order which is more than a year crld, it is seen that petitioner who is an assessee ur.rder the Act did not file return of income for the "assessment year 2O7Z-18 as is required under Section 139 of the Act. Therealter lsr respondent passed best judgment I t THE HON'BLE TH@EHUYAN WBIT PMIaION No.37OB4 of 2022 I W.P.No.37034 o1' 2022 assessment under Section 144 of the Act making an addition of Rs.20,00,260.00 to the income of the petitioner' 4 . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner did not receive any notice from the Income Tax Department. The fact that Income Tax Department had sought for ne'*' E-mail ID of the petitioner itself would go to showthatnoticewasnotserveduponthepetitioner.He further submits that petitioner is presently a resident of United States of America' In the circumstances' he prays for remand of the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer'

5.

We are afraid we cannot accede to such prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner' Whether notice has been served or not is the secondary issue' The first and foremost issue is that being an assessee under the Act' there is a corresponding duty on the part of the petitioner to submit return of income. Admittedly, no such return of income was filed compelling the Assessing Officer to resort to best judgment assessment. That apart, al order of assessment is 2 I I , W.P.No.37034 of 2022 alt appealable order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

6.

That being the position, we see no good ground to entertain the writ petition. Petitioner would be at liberty to file appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and if such appeal 1S filed, the same shall be considered in accordance with law. We have not expressed any opinion on merit and all contentions are kept open' 7 . Subject to the observations made above, Writ Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. B. As a sequel, miscellaleous applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. SD/-P.PADMANABHA RE ASSISTANT REGIS //// SECTION FICER

1.

One CC to SRI A. V. A SIVA KARTIKEYA' Advocate [OPUC]

2.

One CC to Ms. K. MAMATA CHOWDARY' S C' for lncome Tax Department loPUCl

3.

Two CD CoPies.

4.

One SPare CoPY 3 R To, MP BS I ,%, '-Y

HIGH COURT DATED:2710912022 1r9 STATE O { oi ! 4 t frsaflfrl ORDER DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS tI sttltfl:L o .1 a WP.No.37034 ot 2022 r-(c ) e

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →