M/s. Indu projects Limited vs. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the writ petition. The Court noted that the appeals before the ITAT, namely ITA Nos. 186-189/Hyd/2018 for the Assessment Years 2009-10 to 2012-13, had already been disposed of by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad 'B' Bench, vide an order dated 28.02.2022. Given this fact, the Court held that the petitioner would have an adequate remedy in the form of filing an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed as no live issue survived for adjudication. The impleadment petition was also disposed of as no order was required to be passed. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to pursue their remedies under Section 260A.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, M/s. Indu Projects Limited, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Telangana seeking a writ of mandamus. The petitioner challenged the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's (ITAT) rejection of their adjournment applications in ITA Nos. 186-189/Hyd/2018 for Assessment Years 2009-10 to 2012-13. The ITAT rejected an adjournment application via letter dated 31.12.2021 and a subsequent oral request on 07.01.2022. The petitioner also sought a direction for the ITAT President to dispose of a petition for the constitution of a Special Bench. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax sought to be impleaded as a respondent. The High Court noted that the appeals before the ITAT (ITA Nos. 186-189/Hyd/2018) were already disposed of by the Hyderabad 'B' Bench of the ITAT on 28.02.2022.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the action of the 1st respondent (ITAT) in rejecting the adjournment application filed in ITA Nos. 186-189/Hyd/2018 for Assessment Years 2009-10 to 2012-13, vide letter dated 31.12.2021, and the subsequent oral adjournment request on 07.01.2022, is illegal, unconstitutional, and against the principles of natural justice? (Question of law and fact, concerning procedural fairness and natural justice principles). 2. Whether the 2nd respondent (ITAT President) should be directed to dispose of the petition for the constitution of a Special Bench? (Question of law and fact, concerning administrative directions). Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the rejection of adjournment applications was illegal, unconstitutional, and violated the principles of natural justice. They sought a direction for the constitution of a Special Bench. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue, through the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, sought to be impleaded as a respondent. The learned Assistant Solicitor General appeared for the respondents. The revenue did not explicitly record arguments on the merits of the adjournment or the Special Bench constitution in the judgment, but their presence indicated opposition or a stance on the proceedings.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ITAT
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA Between: M/s. lndu Projects Limited, No.1009, lndu Fortune Fields, 13th phase, KPHB Colony, Hyderabad - 500072. Rep. by lnsolvency Professional and Member of Monitoring Committee. ...PETITIONER AND 't. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), 502 and 505, CGO Towers, Kavadiguda, Secunderabad - 500080. Represented by its Assistant Registrar 2. The Honourable President, lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, 11th Floor, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi-1 10003. Represented by the Registrar ...RESPONDENTS 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 issue a writ, writ, order or direction, more particularly one [n the nature of Writ of Mandamus, by declaring action of the 1st respondent in rejecting the adjournment application filed in ITA Nos.186-189/Hyd/2018 for Assessment Years 2009 - 10 to 2012 - 13, vide letter dt. 3111212021 and also rejection of subsequent oral adjournment request on 0710112022, as illegal, unconstitutional and against the Principles of Natural Justice and consequently, direct the 2nd Respondent to dispose of the petition for Constitution of Special Bench by the 2nd Respondent- l.A.No.2 of 2022 IN/AND WRIT PETITION NO: 10240 OF 2022
il2il lA NO: 1 OF 20221 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the l-ligh Court may be pleased to grant stay on all further proceedings before the 1st respondent in ITA Nos. 186- 189/Hyd/2018 for Assessment Years 2009 - 10 lo 2O12-13, including passing of final orders, until the disposal of the petition ,71. 2811212021 filed for the constitution of Special bench by the 2nd Responderrt, as otherwise the petitioner would be put to irreparable loss and severe hardship. lA NO: 2 OF 2022 Between: The Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax-l , 6th Floor, Signature Towers, Kondapur, Opp: Botanical Gardens, Hyderabad. ...lmplead Petitioner/ Proposed Respondent No.3 AND 1. M/s. lndu Projects Limited, No.1009, lndu Fortune Fields,'13th phase, KPHB Colony, Hyderabad - 500072. Rep. by lnsolvency Professional and Member of Monitoring Committee. ....RespondenUPetitioner 2. The lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), t'02 and 505, CGO Towers, Kavadiguda, Secunderabad - 500080. Represented by its Assistant Registrar. 3. The Honourable President, lncome Tax Appellat,-. Tribunal, 11th Floor, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi-1 10001). Represented by the Registrar. petition under order 1, R.1o read with sectionle5T8l8:J:l?"Tffiifl:il; the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to implead the petitioner herein as Respondent No.3. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. DUNDU MANMOHAI.I Counsel for the Respondents: SRI B. MUKHERJEE F:OR SRI NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWARA RAO, ASSISTANIT SOLICITOR GENERAL Counsel for the lmplead Respondent: MS. K. MAMAI'A CHOWDHARI, SENIOR S.C. FOR INI:OME TAX DEP,ARTMENT The Court made thc following: COMMON ORDER
THE HON'BLE'I'HE CHIEF IUSTICE UIIAI- BHTJYAN AND IHE HON'BI.E MRS. IUSI'ICE SUREPAILI NANDA I.A.No.2 of 2022 io/ & \I'.1'.No. l0 of 2022 C_pI4.\!ON.-OBDE\: it,.r rlc t tan hL rt, (./;rt ltt.,t.t I ,ri u/ .rt.t,l llcard l\lr. l')unclu \lunrr,,lt:ur. lt:lrrrctl c()urlscl ltrr thc petiti()ner, and NIr. l3.NIukhcrjec, lcarncd c()Lrnscl rcprescnting N,[ r. Namavarapu lta,eshwara Ra(), lcarncd Assismnt Solicitor ( lcncral of India for thc responclcnrs. 2. \\,'c havc also hcard N{s. I.,.N{arnara (-horvdhari. lcarncd Scnior Staurlintl (-ourrscl for lhc Inci,nrc 'l tr [)tJr:rnm('nt, \\rh( ) has tilcd implcarl pctiLi()n Ior thc llcr cnuc bcins [..\.No-2 <f 2022 3. 'l'hc wrir pcdtion has bccn filctl sceking thc f<rllowing rclicfs: lirr thc rcasons stated hcrcrn, thc pctitioncr pravs that this court may be pleased to issue a rvrit, ordcr or direction more particularly one in the nature o[ rvrit of mandamus, bl declaring the action of thc 1" rcspondcnt in rcjcctins thc adjournmcnt applicauon {iled in ll \ \os.lii6 llt().,/lllrl/-2(llti lirr' \sstssrtrcrtt Ytrrs l0()()-1() ro ll)12.1j, ryrlr lcrrt,r'dr..ll.ll.lttll .rrr.l ,rls,, rtlrr:rrrrrr rrl-suIr:ccluerrt oral adjournmcnt re(lue st on (i-.(| 1 .2(122 ls illcgal. uncorrst itutiona l and against tht prir-rciplcs ol rr:rturirl -ltrsrrcc arr.l c()nscqucntl\., dircct thc 2"'r ltcspondcrrt to disposc oi rht' petitiort for consutution of Spccial llcnch br thc 2"'l l(cs1;ondcnt an.l mav ! I I 1
ir .rrlr ofittr r,rr]e:- r)l ,rr''.1('l: .t- ril- ,:. ' rrr '-i, ilil' r' rlr I ". ( it Lrlrsrir!ri:c:r ()l thc cl:s(l 4. I;lom tirc zrbove, it is seer, tha'- pcljtioircl' sceks hltct'tcrcl1Lc + jrh r-t'tccttrrtr oi' iris rcqircst ftrr adirlr-rrtrlrlcnt lrt tht lsli,i;1.;1' 1,r1 .\PPsi111, 'lril;unal u,hilc ltcrt'trrtl I'l .\..Nos. lfj(, ili'),tllrtl lttlS t,,t thc asscsst'ncnr vca,:s 2009 ;0 ro l0l2 1.1. il ;rtltr lrt lrr{ !lrl(ttt!ri tl:.tt rirt . .Ii,'rrr':IIrIcrrt r-cqll(ci \':t: lt)i'rJ( lrt iir: '-,,,,,,,,i)( r ',, l.ri.l' drtccl i I . 1,2.202i aod thcrcaftcr, o,:allv ()n 0 i.0 I .2():2 5 ( tn 06.07.2t)22, lcameci r\ssistar-rr S,olici;rir (icn.i:rl .l' intiii :iui-)r'rilli(i(l i-t iirl thc aifidavit lllt:d on lrci-,;rii , r rcsr-r,lriLrrt" l\,r. I 'l!t(l tltili l'c!iucst of rltc 1'rt:tifion(:!' ti)r al ,:r\lliull/rlr ,,f .-rr, iirl ii'ir<ir ,, tlrc lrr:ortt 'l 1y ,\lrPcllatc' Iri]-,irr ri .,..:r. ', rrlr,.ii.iril l',, hirn ott :.1.O.1.2()22- 'l hcrciiirc, rvc h,itl rr-r:irir en . )l)scr'\ .Ilt( )ri tlr;rl no livc issuc survives tbt adjudication. ,\ccordinslr', rht: casc hr.s bccn listcd t()dav under thc capliorr 'lrtrr di:,mi-.:ral' (t In thc hcaring todav, N'{s. K.i\,Ian-rata (.h,rucllr:rr,,. ltrilnctl )'r nir,r tt iJr(lrrr\l (-()rin:rcl fi'r tlr<, lrt<-orlc Ilr i)r'lr u'llllr'lr :ul)l)tit- i , ,ti\(::nl( llt , ( .lt . ]i l{ )() l1) th:rr l l \.\,,s.lS(r 181),rl l\r1,,'-l()1.e li,r' rlrt
t(, ft)ll'l i rvcre rlispr,sccl ol' lrr rhr' lrtcontc lax .\ppcllarc 'I ribunl[, Flvderabad 'B' l]cnch, Ilvdcraba<i t,ide ordcr drrrcrl 28.02.2tr22 7. lf that be the position, peuooner rvould have adequatc rcmedv in the form of filing appcal under Secuon 260A of the Irrcornc'l'ax ,\ cr., 1961 ti. 'l'ht:rchrrc, wc dismiss thc \\'rit l)critiorr filcd bv thc pctirioncr u itlt tht: libcrtr as abovc. No cosrs. 9. (,onse<iuendy, no ordcr is recluircd to bc passcd in the irnlrlcad petition being I.A.No -2 ol 2022 and the same is also clisl-xrscd of. r\s a sctluel, miscellancous pcriri( xrs, pcncling if anv, stand closccl. //TRUE COPY// SD/. N. RAJA GOPAL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR secrro\aorrrcen To, 6 7 CHR GJP 1 2 J 4 A The Assistant Registrar, lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAI, 502 and 505, CGO Towers, Kavadiguda, Secunderabad - 500080. The Registrar, Honourable President, lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, 11th Floor, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi-l '10003. One CC to SRl. DUNDU MANMOHAN/Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri Namavarapu Ra.jeshwara Rao, Assistant Solicitor General loPUCl One CC to Ms. K. Mamata Chowdhari, Senior S.C. for lncome Tax Department [OPUCI Two CD Copies One Spare Copy x,- '.1.. I
HIGH COURT DATED:13t0712022 COMMON ORDER l.A.No.2 of 2022 IN/AND W.P.No.10240 of 2022 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS, -/a -:- 1... S T.qF€ 2 2 liEP ?[U z l:) Dq' ffia I @
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
