M/s. Chidrupi Estates and Holding Limited vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

PDF · subscribers
WP/9708/2025HC TelanganaHBHC01019398202501 April 2025Author: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA7 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, considering the contentions of the petitioner and the fact that the revenue did not dispute the issuance of the Section 148 notice by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, acknowledged the likelihood of the assessment order being held unsustainable. The Court referred to its own judgment in Kankanala Ravindra Reddy vs. Income Tax Officer and the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India & ors., v. Ashish Agarwal and others. The Court opined that the Assessing Authority should have adopted a more pragmatic view and kept recovery proceedings in abeyance pending the appeal. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Assessing Officer not to pursue recovery proceedings based on the impugned order dated 07.01.2025 until the appeal for Assessment Year 2016-17 is finally decided. The Appellate Authority was directed to decide the appeal expeditiously, preferably within six weeks from the receipt of the order.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Chidrupi Equities Holdings Limited (formerly M/s. Chidrupi Financial Services Limited), filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 07.01.2025. This order directed the petitioner to pay 20% of the disputed demand pending the disposal of their appeal before the 1st Appellate Authority (4th Respondent). The disputed demand pertains to Assessment Year 2016-17. The petitioner had filed a statutory appeal under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and also sought interim protection regarding recovery proceedings under Section 220(6) of the Act. The impugned order was passed on this application for interim protection.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order dated 07.01.2025, directing the petitioner to pay 20% of the disputed demand pending appeal, is arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, void-ab-initio, violative of principles of natural justice, and Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 265 of the Constitution of India, and Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contentions: - The assessment order dated 07.01.2025 is unsustainable because the notice under Section 148 was issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whereas, as per amended provisions, it ought to have been issued in a faceless manner. This contention is supported by a Division Bench of the High Court in Kankanala Ravindra Reddy vs. Income Tax Officer. - A similar assessment for a subsequent period (Assessment Year 2014-15) was set aside by this Court in W.P.No.12348 of 2023, implying the current assessment order is also likely to be set aside. - The Assessing Authority ought to have granted interim protection to the assessee pending the appeal, considering subsequent amendments and the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India & ors., v. Ashish Agarwal and others. Revenue's Contentions: - The judgment records no specific arguments from the revenue regarding the validity of the Section 148 notice or the need for interim protection.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 246A,Section 220(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
134471 HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION NO: 9708 0F m25 Between: M/s..Chidrupi Eqtale-s alg l-_loldlng Limited, (Formerty) M/s. Chidrupi Financiat Services Limited, 6-3-123812012,2trtD Ftoor, Asif Avdnue, Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda - 500 082, Hyderabad Represented by its Direitor fr/r. Xris-frn-d Raghuveer reddy S/o. Mr. K.Ganga Reddy. ...PETITIONER AND 1 . The Deputy C_ommissioner of lncome Tax, Circle 1(1 ), Hyderabad, lncome Tax Towers, A C Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad'- 500 004, Tel6nqana. 2. Assegsment Unit, lncome Tax Departmeni, National e-Assessment denter, New Delhi, Room No.. 4O1,2nd Fioor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, New Delhi - 110 003. 3. The Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax - I, lncome Tax Towers, A C Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad - S00 004, Telangana. 4. The Joint Commissioner (Appeals) / the CommissiSner of lncome Tax $qpgals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Through the principal Chief Commissioner of lncome.Tax (NaFAC), Delhi, NorttiBlock, New'Delhi - 110 001 5. The Central Board of Direct Taxes, Represented by its Chairman, Department of Relenue, .lr4'l'i-s!ry of Finance, Goveinment of lnilia, Secretariai auitdings, New Delhi - '1 10 001 . ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, declaring the order passed by the 1st Respondent, vide DIN and Lefter No.. |TBAiCOMlFllT12024-2511071966512(1), dated 07.01.2025, in directing the Petitioner lo pay 2O of the disputed demand, peMing disposal of the appeal of the Petitioner before the '1st Appellate Authority, i.e., the 4th Respondent herein, for the Assessment Year 2016 -17, as arbitrary, illegal, barred by limitation, bad in law, void-ab-initio, violative of the principles of natural justice, apart from being violative of Article,s t a t 9(1Xg) and 265 of the constitution of lndia ilrd sec 148A of the lncome Ta.< Act. 'l 961, and consequenfly set-aside the same irnd grant stay of recovery, penrling c is;posar of the petitioner's appear before the 1 st Appelrate Authority, in the interestr; of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition unrie' [i:r+ion 1sl cpc praying that in the circurnstarrcas stated in the affidavit filed in ,;urport of the petition, the High court may be pl,,rased to stay all further procee<rings incruding any recovery, pursuant the order par;sed by the 1st Respondenl, vice DrN and Letter No.. rrBA/coru/Fi1 712024- 2511071966512(1 r, dak:ct ot.o1 .2o2s, in directing the petitioner to pzy 2oo/o of the disputed demand, penrling disposal of the appeal of the petitioner betore the 1st Appellate Authority, i.e . the 4th Respondent herein, for the F\ssessment year 2016 - 17, pendirrg dispcsar of the above writ petition, pendinr] rli.posar of the above Writ Petitiorr. Counsel for the Petitio,rer: SRt A.V.A.SIVA KARTIKEYA 99-r!:"] for the Resporrdents: M/s. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY, Jr. S(.) FOR INCOME TAX

The Court made the following: ORDER

TIIE IIONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY - AND TIIE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKOAIDA w.P.No.9708 oF2025 . ORDER (per Hon'ble Sri Justice p.km Koslry) Heard Sri A.V.A. Siva Kartikeya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Bokaro Sapna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department respondents. perused the record. appearing for the 2. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 07.01.2025 in directing the petitioner to pay 20%o of the disputed demand, nendinl disposal of the appeal before the Appellate Authority for the Assess mentyear 2016_17. 3. The petitioner herein had filed statutory remedy of an appeal under Section 246A ofthe Income Tax Act, 196l (for short, the 'Acr,) before the Appellate Authority along with the Memo of Appear. The petitioner had arso preferred interim protection so far as the recovery proceedings are concerned under Section 220(6) of the Act. It is this efElication which stands

2 decided b1' th,: impugrred order directing the pelitiotler for payment of th,: amounts stated above.

4.

Tbe corttention of the leamed counsel for the petiti'rner is that the As,selrsment Order dated 07.01.2025 itself, in the light of the Divisir>n Ilench of this Court in the case of Kan kanala Ravindra Reddy vs. lncome Tax Oflicerr, is not susta]nlble as the noti,;e urtcier Section 148 was issued by the - urisdictional Assessing Of fi oer, whereas, as per the amended pro'risic'n of the Act, that ouqlrt to had been issued in the Faceless rlanner' He further sultrnits that the assessment of the petitione'r th::rnselves carried ,rut irr a similar manner for the subsequenl period was already r;ulrjer:ted to challenge before this Court for tht: Asst:ssment Year 2(ll4-15 vide W.P.No.l2348 of 2023 and the said writ petition str>oc allowed vide order dated 07.1L.202.3' In th',: tight of the afores;rid two decisions, there is all likelihood of the appeal pending br:fbre: the Appellate Authority also having the lrame fate of the ,\ssessrnent Order not being maintainable 6nd 16ring set aside. t 120231 15; tern], n r.com i -1I'EIANGANA)

3 \

5.

In the light of the subsequent amendments brought in the Act as also in the light of_the decision rendered by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & ors., v. Ashish Agarwal and others2, the Assessing Authority ought to had granted interim protection to the Assessee till finalization of the appeal which the Assessing Authority has not considered.

6.

The contention of the leamed counsel for the petitioner so far as the 148 notice issued-by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer not being in dispute by the reamed Standing counser for the Department and also in the light of the aforesaid judgments rendered by this Court in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy (supra t) and in the light of the judgment of the Hon,ble Supreme Court in case of Ashish Agarwal (supra 2), we are of the considered opinion that the Assessing Authority in the course of deciding the petition under Section 220(6) of the Act, ought to have taken a more pragmatic view and should had kept the recovery proceedings in abeyance, pending the appeal before the Appellate Authority ') 2022 sCC OnLine SC 543 l i

4

7.

For tlLe rfbresaid reasons, we dispose of the preserrt writ petition a- this .iuncture directing the Assessing Officer: rr)t to pursue with thr: recovery proceedings in terms of the imp ur3ned order dated 07 .(;1.2025 till the appeal for the Assessrnen fear 2016-17 is fina I'r decided.

8.

CorLsiJerirrg the fact that the appeal was fited i-r th:: year 2023, we e):pecr, that the Appellate Authority shall take 4r the appeal an1 lec irle the same at the eeirliest, preferably, ''^ritlLin a period of ;ir (C6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copv t1'this order. There shrll be no order as to costs. CorLseqr,r:ntly, miscellaneous applications, pendinp; if any, shall stanrl c los:rl. D/- I.. L/\}(SHMI BABU S //// pEPUTY REGISTRAR To J SECTION OFFICER

1.

The DePtrtY Cc ntmissioner of lncome Tax, Circle 1) Hyd eraltad, lncome Tax Tow<lrs, A C: Guards, Masab Tank, HYderabad-5000 04, R:langana. nt Center,

2.

Assessment [J'tit, lncome Tax DePa rtment, Nation al e-Assesst'nr: New Delhi, Ro:rn No. 401, 2nd Floor, E-RamP, Jawaharlal N()hru Stadium, New Deltri ' 1 10 003. 3. The Prinr;ipal Oommissioner of lncome Tax- - 1 ' lncome Tax Ttirrrers' A C " cr;rd'r,"ffiial: rant<, Hyderabad :5-90 0I)4' Telang-ana -m*la:liiis}r*-il'f-t'-.niiitT$I}T[.ri:.[isniilm'#*, 5 6 7 '1 10 001 in! b"t,rirn,rn, lentral Board of Direct Taxes' Departmerrt of :1r:venue' Ministry,rf =inatrce, couernti""nti?itioialseiretariat Builcing';' New Delhi - 110 001 on"e-Ci to sF I A V.A.slvA KARTIKEYA, Advoqale-[oPUCl - - - - - . - ffi dd i6 il) j 'eoi<Ado snir'in nEorjv, L'' sc FbR rr\cc N E rAX loPUCl Two CD CoPit:s

6.

PSK. GJP Fr

HIGH COURT DATED:0110412025 ,ORDER WP.No.9708 of 2025 t DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSiTS e,5 lic 1, _\ ,) ,J ir) '13 Jt]ll lM z c) 4 r(- .$( * * .? DE.s ,.. 11 3 \:--,- .dd \o Y{* eo\"'

More judgments on Section 148A

All 3,543 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →