Chandrasekhar Jayaraman vs. Chief Commissioner of Income-tax

PDF · subscribers
WP/31940/2024HC TelanganaHBHC01061685202425 November 2024Author: SUJOY PAUL,K. SARATH3 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court permitted the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition. The petitioner sought this withdrawal with liberty to file a Return under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with relevant documents, and requested that the competent authority be directed to consider the same in accordance with law. The Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department had no objection to this request. The Court observed that if the Return and documents are filed, the competent authority shall consider them and pass an order expeditiously in accordance with law. Consequently, the Writ Petition was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. No costs were awarded, and any pending interlocutory applications were also closed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Chandrasekhar Jayaraman, filed a writ petition before the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. The petition challenged an order passed under clause (d) of section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 30.08.2024, and a consequential order dated 30.08.2024 issued under section 148, which reopened the income tax assessment for the assessment year 2018-19. The petitioner sought to declare these orders as arbitrary, capricious, illegal, and unsupportable in law, and to quash them. An interlocutory application was also filed seeking to suspend the impugned orders. The respondents were the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and the Income Tax Officer, International Taxation, Hyderabad.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order passed under clause (d) of section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 30.08.2024, and the consequential order dated 30.08.2024 issued under section 148, reopening the income tax assessment for assessment year 2018-19, are arbitrary, capricious, illegal, and unsupportable in law? The petitioner argued that the impugned orders were arbitrary, capricious, illegal, and unsupportable in law. The petitioner sought a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction to quash these orders. The petitioner also sought suspension of the impugned orders. The revenue (respondents) appeared through their Senior Standing Counsel and had no objection to the petitioner's request to withdraw the petition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
1342s 1 HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH WRIT PETI TION NO: 31940 OF 2024 Between: Chandrasekhar Jayaraman, S/o.V.Jayaraman, Aged - about 64. years, Occ.Business3OB, ieachers Colony, East [/arredpally, Secunderabad, Apartmen!201,mustafari Building, Opp.ADCB Metro, Dubai. ...pETlTlONER AND 1. Chief Commissioner of lncometax, lnternational Taxation, Bengaluru 2. lncome tax Officer, lntemational Taxation, Hyderabad ...RES'ONDENTS 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 in the nature of mandamus or any other writ , order or direction declaring that the impugned order passed under clause (d) of section .148A of the l.T. Act dated 30t\t2o24 for asst. year 2018-19 and the consequential order dated 3ot8t2o24 issued u/s.148 reopening the income tax assessment for asst. year 2018-19 as arbitrary, capricious, illegal and unsupportable in law and be pleased to quash the same. IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 suspend the impugned order passed under clause (d) of section 148A of the l'T' Act dated 3ot8t2o24 for asst. year 2018-19 and the consequential order dated 3Ot8t2O24 issued u/s.148 reopening the income tax assessment for asst. year 201 8-19. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI Y.RATNAKAR Counsel for the Respondents: SRI VTJHAY K PUNNA, SENIOR SC FOR ITD

The Court made the following: ORDER I I

THE HONOI'RABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOT'RABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.319zO OF 2024 ORDER: (per Hon'ble Justice Sujog Paul) Sri Y.Ratnakar, learned counsel for the petitioner, after arguing for quite some time, seeks to withdraw this petition with liberty to file Retum in Section 148 of Income Tax proceedings along with relevant documents and prays that the competent authority may be directed to consider the same, in accordance with law.

2.

Sri Vijhay K Punna, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Depa,rtment, appears for respondents, has no objection.

3.

The petition is permitted to be withdrawn with the observation tJlat in the event said Return is hled with relevant documents, the competent authority shall consider the Return altd documents and pass order, in accordance with law, expeditiously-

4.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. It is made clea,r that this Court has not expressed. any opinion on merits of the case. No costs. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed- /T//

1.

One CC to SRI Y.RATNAKAR, Advocate [OP-UC] i. 5ii" dd i; SRiviLHnv r puxun, sENloR sc F

3.

Two CD Copies SD/-T. TIRUMALA DEVI / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / sEcrloN brrtcen PSK. BS Vr oR ITD [oPUC] To I

HIGH COURT DATED:2511112024 ORDER WP.No.31940 of 2024 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS WITHDRAWN WITHOUT COSTS. . X* oo ( il ltA ili6 rtI I 0 t/ $c 20?{ .. ,s ,a , Ie t ( 1 R E S I.t {) I I I , ). ',.+ It I I

More judgments on Section 148A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →