Mr. Harish Kumar Dandamudi vs. The Income Tax Officer

PDF · subscribers
WP/6904/2026HC TelanganaHBHC01013611202622 April 2026Author: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA6 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court noted that the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department, upon taking instructions and considering the stand taken by the Additional Solicitor General before the Supreme Court, accepted that the notice dated March 31, 2021 (issued on April 1, 2021) for the Assessment Year 2015-2016 was indeed issued beyond the period of six years. Consequently, the Court held that the notice was barred by limitation. The ratio decidendi is that a notice issued under Section 148 beyond the prescribed limitation period is invalid. The Court set aside and quashed the notice dated March 31, 2021 (issued on April 1, 2021) and the consequent assessment order. No order as to costs was made.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mr. Harish Kumar Dandamudi, challenged a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated March 31, 2021 (issued on April 1, 2021), for the Assessment Year 2015-2016. He also challenged the consequent assessment order and the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals. The petitioner contended that the notice was issued beyond the six-year limitation period. The respondents are the Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Center, Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. The writ petition was filed before the High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated March 31, 2021 (issued on April 1, 2021), for the Assessment Year 2015-2016, is barred by limitation. Assessee's contention: The notice was issued beyond the period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year, making it invalid. Revenue's contention: The revenue, through its learned Senior Standing Counsel, accepted that the notice was issued beyond the period of six years, acknowledging it was barred by limitation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION NO: 6904 OF 2026 134471 ...PETITIONER Between: AND Mr. Harish Kumar Dandamudi, S/o. Mr_Avanindra Kumar Dandamudi, aged 53 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Plot No. BB, Gunrock Enclave, Road -No. 1, Secunderabad - 500 009, Telangana. 1 2 3 4 The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 17(1), Hyderabad, Signature Towers, Sy. No. 6(P) of Kondapur, Sy. No. 37(p) of Kothaguda, Opposite Botanical Gaidens, Serilingampally Mandat, Ranga Reddy Diskict, Hyderabad _ 5OO 084, Telangana. Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant commissioner of lncome Tax /lncome Tax Officer,, National Faceless Assessment Center, New Delhi,Room No 40.1, 2nd Floor, E Ramp,Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, New Delhi The Commissioner of lncome Tax Appeals, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi,, Through the Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax NaFAC,Delhi, North Block, New Delhi The Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax, Hyderabad 2,, lncome Tax Office, 6 2 156 3,Subhash Nagar,Nizambad ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Ariicle 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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or Direction. declaring a.the notice of the 1st Respondent, u/s 149 of the lncome Tax Act,-1g61, dated 31.03.2021 (issued on 01 042024 vide DlN. trBA/AST/s/14Bl2o2o- 2111032103778(1) b.the Assessment order in DtN trBA/AST/s/14 zt2oz1_ 2211041641844('1), passed by the 2nd Respondent. dated 2(i 03.2022, pursuant to a notice issued by the 'lst Respondent. u/s 14g of the rncome Tax Act, 1g61, dated 31 .03.2021 c.the order of the 4th Respondent, dated .18.19.2025, vide DIN and order No. lrBA/NFAc/s/2sot2oz5-26t108089456i(1), passed u/s 250 of the lncome Tax Act' 1961 for the Assessment year 2015-16, as arbitrary. iflegar. bad in raw, void-ab-initio, violative of the principles of natural iustice apart from being violative of Articres 14, 19(1)(g) and 265 0f the constitution of rndia, and consequenfly set aside the same in the interests of justice l.A. NO: 1 OF 2026 Petrtion under Section 1 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to stay ail further proceedings, incruding any recovery, pursuanr to the n(ltrce u/s .r4g of rncome Tax Act, 1961 issued by the .tst Respondent, vide DtN.No. rrBA/AST/s/14gl2o2o- 2111032103778(1), 31.03.2021, for the Assessment year 2015 - i6, pending disposal of the above Writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri A.V.A.Siva Kartikeya counsel for the Respondents: Ms.J.sUNrrHA (sR sc FoR rNcoME TAx)

The Court made the following: ORDER

w \ IN THE HIGI t COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA A1' HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE I{ONOURABI-E SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA W.P.No.6904 of 2026 Date:22.04.2026 Between: Mr.Harish Kumar Dandamudi . Petitioner And The Income Tax Offlccr, Hyderabad and others. .. .Respondents ORDER: ,lvr I!,n.hlr Sri Jtr.ttict, P.Sum K,tshy) Heard Mr.A.V.A. Siva Kartikeya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.J.Sunitha, learned Senior Standing Counsel lor the Income Tax Deparlrnent, for the respondents.

2.

The present is the case where notice dated 31.03.2021 (issued on 01.04.2021) issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is under challenge.

3.

The Assessment Year in the present case is 2015-2016. In addition to the challenge to the said notice being given by the amendment brought to the Incorne Tax Act within effect from 01.04.2021, learned counsel for the petitioner had also challenged the same on being barred by lirnitation, as the notice has been issued adrnittedly beyond the period ol six years. The assessment year being 2Ol5-2016, time lirnit within which notice could have \

2 been issued on 31.03.2022 and in the instant case, the notice dated 31.03.2021 has been issued admittedly beyond the period of six years i.e. on 01.04.2021. 4. On the previous date of heaLing, leamed Standing Counsel for the Departrnent had taken time to seek instructions'

5.

Upon instructions, learned Senior Standing c'runsel for the Income Tax taking into consideration the stand taken by the learned Additional Solicitor General before the Hon',ble Supretne Court, more particularly, in respect of the ass;essment year 20 I5-2016 accepts that notice has been infact issu':d beyond the pcriod of six years. As such, the notice is bared by I nritation'

6.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands allorr'ed' Notice dated 3 1.03.2021 (issued on 01.04.2021) stands set aside/quashcd and the consequellt assessment order also stands set aside/quashed' No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if anv, shall stand closed /I// SD/.T. SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 17(1), Hyderabad, Sigrrature Towers' Sy- No 6(P) of Kondapur, Sy. No. 37(P) of Kothaguda, Opposite Botanical Gardens' sLritingampalty ttrtanOat Ranga Reddy District, HTderabad - 500 084' Telangana- To, 1 - T -l (e

ffiz I I i i 2' The Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant commissioner of rncome Tax /lncome Tax officer,, Nationar Faceress Assessment center, New oeiti,noo, No 401, 2nd Floor, E Ramp,Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, New Delhi

3.

The Commissioner of lncome Tax Appeals, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi,,- Through the principal Chief Commissioner of income fax NaFAC,Delhi, North Btock, New Dethi

4.

The Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax. Hyderabad 2,, lncome Tax Office, 6 2156 3, Subhash Nagar,Nizambad

5.

The Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax, Hyderabad - 2, lncome Tax Office, 6-2-156/3, Subhash Nagar, Nizambad _503 002, Telangana 6 7 B One CC to SRI A.V.A S|VA KART|KEYA Advocate. [OPUC] One CC to Ms J.SUN|THA (SR.SC FOR TNCOM TAX) tOpUCl Two CD Copies BSK BS

HIGH COURT DATED: 221041202G ORDER ! !l I:) : WP.No.6904 of 202G ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ,$ il\+ . <yLAl'tG,.;1. j* '+), .iu .f i RY 't 'l-: ri-{t :-r ( .i. c' ,9 + r\r ,f,,, ./. h a '/r'., ,..\. ,!' 'J3 i.1!)r,

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →