SMT. KANCHARLA ALIVELU vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax

PDF · subscribers
WP/739/2026HC TelanganaHBHC01001177202620 January 2026Author: APARESH KUMAR SINGH,G.M. MOHIUDDIN5 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition. The Court noted that the petitioner had a statutory remedy of appeal available to her. The respondents' counsel pointed out that the petitioner had not responded to repeated emails and notices, a fact evident from the impugned order. The Court, therefore, was not inclined to interfere with the matter in its writ jurisdiction. The petitioner was granted liberty to prefer a statutory appeal, where she could raise all available grounds of law and fact. The Court explicitly stated that the writ petition was dismissed with the aforesaid liberty, and there would be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, were also closed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Smt. Kancharla Alivelu, challenged an assessment order dated 16.03.2024, passed by the Income Tax Officer (Respondent No. 2) for Assessment Year 2015-16. The challenge was brought before the High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner sought to quash the assessment order, deeming it void ab initio, illegal, arbitrary, unsustainable in law, and violative of constitutional rights. She also sought a direction to consider her return of income filed on 24.08.2016. The assessment order was passed under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. A consequent demand order dated 13.09.2025 was also challenged. The petitioner's primary ground for challenge was the alleged violation of principles of natural justice.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order dated 16.03.2024, passed under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2015-16, is void ab initio, illegal, arbitrary, unsustainable in law, and violative of the principles of natural justice, as contended by the petitioner. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner sought to quash the order and have her return of income considered. Revenue's Contention: The respondents submitted that the petitioner failed to respond to repeated emails and notices, as indicated in the impugned order. They further contended that the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy of appeal, where all grounds of law and fact can be raised.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
[ 34881 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (SPecial Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF SRI JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN WRIT PETITION NO:739oF 2026 Between: SMT. KANCHARLA ALIVELU, Wo Sri Kancharla Ch-ukka Reddy' Aged. about 48 #[,'il;:ijGin-"il, nLlioirigiiprot l.ro. 25, SiriVijava Enclave, Fathulasuda, i""i:i An r'-"i",nl o s r, iia no ra6 uo"rl irriiri j E"a av, H voe rabao - s00068' ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax, Block 10C' l T' Towers' A'C' Guards, lViasab Tank, Hyderabad-S0O 004' 2. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 9 ( 1 ) , lT Towers, AC Guards' Masab Tank' Hyderabad, Telangana-500004. 3. National Faceless Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department., New Delhi' ...RESPONDENTS petition under Article 226 ot the Constiiution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the Hi$h court may be pleasedtoissueanappropriatewritorderorWritofCertiorari'quashingthe Assessment order bearing DIN No. ITBA/AST/S/14712023-2411062754414(1\' dated 16.03.2024,PAN No. ADAPY660gE,passed by Respondent No 2 that to based on the incorrect information as void ab initio, illegal, arbitrary' unsustainable inlawandviolativeofArticle14'2l,and300Aoftheconstitutionoflndia. Consequently,directtheRespondentauthoritiestoconsiderthePetitionerReturn of lncome filed on 24.08-2016, acknowledged vide ASK No 694240816032834' lA NO: 2 OF 2026 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 grant sustention of the Assessment Order bearing DIN No. ITBA/AST/S/ 14712023-241 1062754414(1), dated 16.O3.2024,PAN No. ADAPY6609E passed under sectionl4T read with Sections 144 and 1448 ot the lncome Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2015-16, and the consequent demand order DIN No.ITBA/COM/Fl 1712025-26/ 1080697073(1) dated 13.09.2025, issued by Respondent No.2, pending the final disposal of the present writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. BHAVENDER REDDY NARRAVULA Counsel for tlre Respondents No 1 & 2 : SRI K.SUDHAKAR REODY (Sr SC FoR INCOME TAx) Counsel for the Respondents No 3: SC FOR CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

The Court made the following: ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR STNGH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIT'DDIN WRIT PETITION No. 739 of 2026 DATED z 20.01.2026 Between: Smt. Kancharla Alivelu Petitioner AND The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad and two others ... Respondents ORDER: Sri Bhavender Reddy Narravula, learned counsel appears for petitioner. Sri K. Sudhakar Reddy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax appears for respondents.

2.

The assessment order dated 16.03.2024 relatable to the Assessment' Year 2015-16 has been challenged in writ jurisdiction inter alia on the ground of violation of principles I \ of natural justice.

3.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has not responded to the repeated I lr'.M

To, emails and notices as is evident from para 2 of the impugned order. The petitioner also has a remedy of appeal where she can tal,:e all grounds of law and on facts.

4.

In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, since the petitiorrer has a statutory remedy of appeal, we are not inclined to inte:rfere with the matter in the writ jurisdiction. The petitioner is at liberty to prefer a statutory appeal with all such grounds ol'law and on facts as may be available to her. l'he instant writ Petition is accordingly dismissed with the aforesaid liberty. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. SD/-M. JAWAHAR REDDY STANT REGISTRAR //// SECTION OFFICER One CC to SRI BHAVENDER REDDY NARRAVULA, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI K. SUDHAKAR REDDY (Sr SC FOR INCOME TAX) [OPUC] One CC to SC FOR CENTRAL GOVERNMENT , Advocate [OPUC] Two CD, Copies DAN BS 1 2 3 4 Pn4. HIGH COURT DATED:"2010112026 ORDER WP.No.739 of 2026 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS WITHDRAWN WITHOUT COSTS tolvlcL' HE Si T a!' a, it (_)) ? 1 [{:B ?026 * * 'l

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →