Mr. K.Suri Babu vs. The Income Tax Officer

WP/9483/2026HC TelanganaHBHC01018672202601 April 2026Author: APARESH KUMAR SINGH,G.M. MOHIUDDIN6 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition as misconceived. The court observed that the petitioner, as the Managing Partner, had been representing to the department about other partners' actions, leading to the firm's inability to file regular returns. The partnership deed provided for arbitration, and the petitioner, authorized to file returns under Section 140(cc) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, had not been filing returns since 2005-06. The court held that the nature of the dispute among partners was a private matter in which the Income Tax Department had no statutory obligation to intervene. Consequently, the petitioner had no basis to seek a writ of Mandamus alleging inaction by the official respondents. The court also noted that any proceedings for non-filing of returns or evasion of taxes would be for the firm and its partners to explain, but this was not the subject of the present writ petition. Therefore, the court found no grounds to entertain the petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mr. K. Suri Babu, is the Managing Partner of M/s Evershine Constructions. He filed a writ petition before the High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad seeking a writ of Mandamus against various Income Tax authorities (Respondents 1-7). The petitioner alleged inaction by these authorities in response to his complaint. He also sought a direction to freeze the bank accounts of other partners (Respondents 8-10) until the firm filed its income tax returns from April 1, 2006, to the present. The petitioner stated that the firm was unable to file regular returns due to disputes among partners. The partnership deed contained an arbitration clause, but the Managing Partner was authorized to file returns under Section 140(cc) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioner himself had not been filing returns since 2005-06.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should issue a writ of Mandamus directing Income Tax authorities (Respondents 1-7) to act upon the petitioner's complaint, considering the nature of the dispute among partners and the petitioner's own non-compliance with filing returns, thereby alleging discriminatory and violative action under Article 21 of the Constitution of India? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner sought a direction for the Income Tax Department to act on his complaint, alleging inaction and discriminatory treatment. He also sought to freeze the bank accounts of other partners. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments from the revenue. However, the court's reasoning implies that the department has no statutory obligation to intervene in disputes between partners and that the petitioner's own failure to file returns weakens his case. The court found no basis to entertain the writ petition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 140(cc)

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) WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH . AND THE HONOURABLE SRl JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN WRIT PETIT]ON NO:9483 oF 2026 Between: Mr. K.Sun Babu, S/o. Late Sri. K.Raghavaiah, Age Abt. 67yrs, Occ. Retd Employe_e, Partner M/s Ever shine con-structioni, p7o. H.No. sg-1'6185, no'h'ini Colony, Sainikpuri, Hyderabad. . AND ...PET|T|ONER 1 . The lncome Tax Officer, Ward No. 1 1, l.T Towers, Masab Tank, Behind J.N.T U College, Hyderabad. 2. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward No. 10, l.T Tovrers, Masab Tank, Behind J.N.T.U Cottege, Hyderabad. 3. The lncome Tax Officer, W.qr{ t!p. 17(2),1.T Towers, Masab Tank, A_C.Guards, Behind J.N.T.U Collese, Hideralad. 4. The Central Board of pirect Taxesl Incohe Tax Department, North Block Secretariat Buildnq, New Delhi- 11OOO2. 5. The Pd Chref Commisssioner of lncome Tax, Andhra pradesh and Telangana, LT Towers, Masab Tank, A.C.GJards, *hind j.N.f.U College, Hyderabad. 6- The Director Generar of rncome Tax (Vigirance), south chennai. Avakar 91,?yrn, 8th Ftoor, Annexe Buitding iZtl U.C.(baO, ttungibik;ml6ne*nnai- 600034. 7. The Director of lncome Tax(.lnvestigatigQ, 9!! Floor, Ayakar Bhavan, Opp to _ L.B.9tadium, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad_ ti6OOO+. 8. Sri. Kakarta Venkaiah, S/b. Kakada Venkat Subbaiah, R/o. Flat No. 404 , B- Block, DSR Fortune Apartments, Madhapur, Hyderabad-S00OAf . - - ' - 9. smr. Kakarta karunamayi, W/o..Kakana Verifaiatr, nyo.Ftal ruJ +04, B-Btock, - qSR Fortune Apartmenis, Madhapur, Hyderabad_'S0oOg1. 10.Smr E pushpatatha, Wo. E. Rarira Ra6, R/o. H.No. 16-2-741lsi 103, Shailaja Hitts, Asmangarh, Malakpet, Hycierabad _ 500036. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 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 writ or order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents 1 to 7 and its functionaries discriminatory and violative of article 21 of the constitution of lndia and consequently direct respondents 1 to 7 to act upon the cornplaint given by the petitioner. lA NO: 1 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 direct the official respondent no. 7, i.e., the Directorate of lncome tax to freeze the bank accounts of the un-official respondents no. 8 to 10 linked with their PAN account no of Respondent no. 8 Sri K.Venkaiah vide PAN Acc No. AHRPK2268E, Respondent No.9 Smt K.Karunamayi vide PAN Acc No. AMNPK7094C, Respondent No. 10 Smt E.Pushpalatha vide PAN Acc No. AADPE2750Q until filling of the lncome- Tax returns of the firm namely M/s Evershine Constructions from 0l-04-2006 to till date, pending disposal of the Writ Petiton. Counsel forthe Petitioner: SRI LANKA RAJENDER PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SMT. J.SUNITHA, SENIOR SC FOR INCOME TAX DEPT. Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.2 & 3: Ms. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY, SENIOR SC FOR ITD Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.5 & 7: SRI N.PRAVEEN REDDY, SENIORSC FOR ITD Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4,6,8 TO 10: -

The Court made the following: ORDER I I : i I I I t II II I I I I ! I I I : : i

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF'TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE IION'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KTJMAR SINGH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIT'DDIN WRIT PETITION No.9483 of 2026 DATED :01.04.2026 Between: Mr, K. Suri Babu ... Petitioner AND The Income Tax ()fficer, Ward No.l l, I.T. Towers. Hyderabad and nine othcrs ... Respondents ORDER: Sri Lanka Ra.jcnder Prasad, learned counsel appears for petltloner Smt. J. Sunitha, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax [)epartnrcnr appcars for respondent No.l . Mrs. Llokaro Sapna Reddy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for [nconre 1'ax Department appears for respondent Nos.2 and i. Sri N. [)rarcen lteddy', Iearned Senior Standing Counsel for Incorne -l ax l)epartrnent appears for respondent Nos.5 and 7

HCJ IAKTS, JJ &, GMM, J w.P.No 94a3 of 2026

Petitioner, who is the Managing partner of the firm, namely, IV7s. Ever Shine Constructions, has bedn representing before the Department to take action against other. partners as the aforesaid flrm is not able to file r.egular returns. fhe deed of partnership is annexed to the instant Writ petition. Apparently, the partners are in dispute. lhe deed of partnership provides for arbitration crause. However, at the same time, the Managing partncr of trrc frr.m is authorized to file retums under Section I 40(cc ) ol thc Irrcome_tax Act, I 961 . Apparently, the petitioner has nor been tiling rhe retums since 2005-06. The nature of dispute raiscd br the petitioner in his representations to the l)epartrncrrt is ittrt,r. .r.e anrongst the partners in respect of which the [)cparrnre irt does rrot have any statutory obligation to act,po.. ilreretirrc. thc rvrit petitioner does not have any basis to scck isruurrcc o[.a writ of Mandamus alleging inaction aguinst resp(,n(.lcnt Nos.l to 7, the official respondents. In casc proccedinq.s are issued bv the [)epartment for non-firing of rcturrrs or cr asi.u of.taxes, it is for the firm and the partner.s ol thc firnr to c1pl31n. However, 2

HCJ (AKrS, J) & CMM, J w.P No 9483 of2026 that is not the subject matter of the present Writ petition. Therefore, we do not find any basis to entertairi this Writ Petition. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed as misconceived. There shall bc no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, i[ any pending, shall stand closed. K.BHAVANI SWAMY SISTANT REGIS //// SECNON OFFICER J To 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. PSK. TKS d-- One CC One CC loPUcl One CC One CC Two CD toS toS RI LANKA RAJENDER PRASAD, MT. J.SUNITHA, SENIOR SC FOR c tO Ms. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY, SENIOR to SRI N.PRAVEEN REDDY. SENIOR SC FOR Copies PT. FOR rTD IOPUC] rTD [OPUC] ) I I I IIlI I TAX

HIGH COURT DATED:0110412026 ORDER WP.No.9483 of 2026 ," * A):r' "'/';" -' :ii-/ DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS MISCONCEIVED WTTHOUT COSTS ,==:=--=-\- _../{tO?. Tlri.\- ..//...$' - r.l,'t... /io" "r..r r' ,,iL; , \ ,ir: 0,, "t' t-?, ( ttil ?w :- \ rr- :.,' "i o.. .;; I ,n\"\zt I ) i L l I i I ! I I I r n14..

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →