Ajaykumar Uppalapati vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 15(1)
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that in light of its previous decision in Kankanala Ravindra Reddy v. Income Tax Officer, at this stage, after the remand by the appellate authority, the assessment ought to be carried out by the faceless assessment authority. This approach would align with the ratio laid down in the cited precedent. The court directed that the petitioner should raise this plea before the assessing authority upon appearance, after which the matter would be placed before the faceless assessment authority. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs. Any pending miscellaneous applications were also closed.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Ajaykumar Uppalapati, filed a writ petition before the Telangana High Court challenging the actions of the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward 15(1), Hyderabad. The challenge was primarily against a notice under Section 148A(b) dated February 28, 2023, for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-2017, and subsequent proceedings including a notice under Section 148 dated March 25, 2023, an assessment order dated March 15, 2024, and a penalty order dated September 27, 2024. The petitioner argued that the jurisdictional assessing authority lacked the power to conduct the assessment after the implementation of the faceless assessment scheme. The matter had previously been remanded by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to the assessing officer for a fresh assessment.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the jurisdictional assessing authority had the jurisdiction to undertake the assessment for AY 2016-2017 after the commencement of the faceless assessment scheme? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the jurisdictional assessing authority did not have the jurisdiction to conduct the assessment after the faceless assessment scheme came into force. They sought a direction for the assessment to be carried out by the faceless assessment authority. Revenue's Contention: The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department submitted that the plea of jurisdiction was not raised before the appellate authority. However, the petitioner's counsel countered that the present writ petition was filed after the remand, and the court's ruling on the subject needed to be followed even after remand by the assessing authority.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court macle the following: ORDER
ry IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF'TELAIIGANA AT HYD THE HON,BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRT APARESH K R SINGH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN WRIT PETITION No.3560 of 2026 Between: Ajaykurnar Uppalapati ...Petitioner and lncome Tax Officer, Ward l5(1), Hyderabad, lncome Tax Tower, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 004 and 3 others. ...Respondents ORDER: Heard Mr. P.Jinal, learned counsel representing Mr. P.Sorna Shekar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. K.sudhakar Reddy, learned senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department, appearing for the respondents. I I Dated: 09.02.2026
2
The notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2016-2017 dated 28.02.2023 is being assailed now or"r the ground that the jurisdictional assessing authority did not have the jurisdiction to undertake the assessrnent after coming into force of the faceless assessrrent scheme
The petitioner has approached the appellate authority i.e., the Cornrnissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), whereby vide order dated 19.11 .2024 the rnatter was remanded to the assessing off-rcer to rnake a fi'esh asses;rnent in the light of the documentary evidences as nray be placed befc,re him and after making such inquiries as may be considered expedient t,y the assessing officer. The present writ petition is fiIed after the remand to the assessing officer taking the ground ofjurisdiction.
Leanred Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Deparlment submits thrrt the plea of jurisdiction was not raised before the appellate authority
Leanred counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has approached this court as the ruling of this Court on the subject has to be followed e'ren after remand by the assessing authority. He prays that an I t appropriate directiqn may be issued upon the assessing authority to place
3 the matter before the faceless assessment authority for undertaking fresh assessment.
We are of the considered view that in the light of the decision rendered in Kankanala Ravindra Reddy v. [ncome Tax Officerr, at this stage after remand, the assessment ought to be carried out by the faceless assessment authority. This shall meet the ratio rendered in Kankanala Ravindra Reddy (supra). The petitioner shall take such a plea before the assessing authority on his appearance, whereafter the matter would be placed before the faceless assessment authority
The writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shalI stand closed 1 1zoZSl 1 56 taxmann.com 1 78 (Telangana) SD/.A.H.S.GOWRI SHAN KAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //// 6 SECTION OFFICER To, 1. lncome Tax Officer, Ward 15(1), Hyderabad, lncome Tax Tower, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad, Telangana, 500004
Principal Commissioner of tncome]a5-lV, Hyderabad lncome Tax Tower, Ac Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad, Telangana, 500004
The National Faceless Assessment Centre lncome Tax, Department Ministry of Finance, Govt. of lndia, New Delhi
The Secretary, Union Of lndia Ministry Of Finance 166-8 North Block, New Delhi 110 001. 5. One CC to SRI P. SOMA SHEKAR REDDY, Advocate IOPUCI
One CC to SRl. K SUDHAKAR REDDY (SENIOR SC FOR INCOME TAX DEPT) [OPUC] .-.- :\r.". -,.- ... "f-.:i:...- -,.1:l-*'-'. -.- -:l:.-: , .: :- r:-a:y-. 'l I It t { :ii'M86
Two CC)s to SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]
Two CD Copies DAN/BSK ++-
,f, t \ HIGH COURT DATED:09/0212026 ORDER WP.No.3560 of 2026 ,,.j, t ): 2 6 f[B uttt[ $) t, \a t * I a DISPOSII\G OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS Jp," t. I I
More judgments on Section 148A
- Rajesh Kumar Khandelwal, Jaipur vs ITO Ward 5(1), JaipurITA 21/JPR/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Kamleshkumar Somalal Bhatt, Himatnagar vs Income Tax Ofifcer, Ward 1, HimatnagarITA 2130/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2124/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Shree Bandharda Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd… vs Income Tax Officer Ward -4, JunagadhITA 881/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Nitinbhai Nanalal Badani, Rajkot vs CIT (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal…ITA 658/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Susanta Mohanty, Gandarpur, Cuttack vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services Tax, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Arun Kumar Mallik vs. The Commissioner, CGST, Cx And Customs,BbsrOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Sabita Khosla vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Rayagada-Ii Range, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Karo Sambhav Private Limited Through Its Director Mr. Pranshu Singhal vs. Additional/Joint Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax, Delhi North & Anr.Delhi · 31 Oct 2026
- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
