Potla Nageswara Rao vs. The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax,

PDF · subscribers
ITTA/521/2013HC TelanganaHBHC01003804201331 October 20132 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Court held that the matter in controversy had been resolved by the Division Bench of the Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Expro Gulf Limited. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of in terms of the law laid down in that decision. The notice issued to the petitioner under Section 147 read with Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was quashed. The ratio decidendi is that if a similar issue has been decided by a higher bench of the same court, subsequent cases with identical facts and legal questions should be decided in line with that precedent. The operative direction was to quash the notice and proceedings.

What were the facts?

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated March 27, 2012, issued by respondent no. 1 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings, including an order dated January 11, 2013, dismissing the petitioner's objections. The assessment year in question is 2007-08. The petitioner sought to quash the notice and proceedings. The Court considered the facts and the law laid down by a Division Bench of the same Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Expro Gulf Limited.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued by respondent no. 1 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2007-08, and the proceedings initiated pursuant thereto, including the order dismissing objections, are liable to be quashed. The petitioner argued that the matter in controversy has been resolved by the Division Bench of the Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Expro Gulf Limited. The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cited by 35 judgments on BharatTax

See all citing judgments →

Counted from the text of the judgments hosted here. Most recent first.

WPMS No. 521 of 2013 U. C. Dhyani, J. Mr. Vishal Kalra, and Mr. Pulak Raj Mullick, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. H.M. Bhatia, Advocate for the respondents. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks following reliefs, among others:

(i) Issue a writ, order or directions in the nature of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the notice dated 27.03.2012 issued by respondent no. 1 under Section 148 of the Act and proceedings initiated pursuant thereto, including order dated 11.01.2013 passed by respondent no. 1 dismissing objections filed by the petitioner.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or directions in they nature of certiorari calling upon respondent no. 1 to transmit and certify the records relating to the said notice and all proceedings initiated thereunder for the assessment year 2007-08 so that the said notice and proceedings initiated thereunder may be set aside / quashed and conscionable justice may be rendered.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Expro Gulf Limited in ITA No. 34 of 2015. This Court has gone into the facts of the case as also the law laid down by Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Expro Gulf Limited in ITA No. 34 of 2015. This Court is of the view that the matter in controversy has been resolved by the above noted Court in aforesaid decision. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Expro Gulf Limited in ITA No. 34 of 2015. Notice issued to the petitioner under Section 147 read with Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is hereby quashed.

(U. C. Dhyani, J.)

26.02.

2016 SH

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →