Sandeep Kumar Patwari vs. The Income Tax Officer
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court allowed the interlocutory application (I.A. No. 1 of 2026). The Court found that the Supreme Court, in its order dated April 10, 2026, had itself remitted all pending matters concerning faceless proceedings to the respective High Courts. This Supreme Court order permitted petitioners to question the constitutional validity of Section 147-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Given this development and the earlier liberty granted by the High Court to seek revival, the Court was of the considered opinion that a strong case for recalling the order dated June 24, 2025, had been made out. Consequently, the earlier order was recalled. The matter was then listed for further adjudication.
What were the facts?
The Income Tax Department (Petitioners/Respondents) filed an interlocutory application (I.A. No. 1 of 2026) seeking to recall an order dated June 24, 2025, passed in Writ Petition No. 17521 of 2025. The original writ petition was filed by Sandeep Kumar Patwari (Respondent/Writ Petitioner). The Department's request for recalling the order was based on a subsequent Supreme Court decision dated April 10, 2026, in the case of Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh & Ors. v. Tej Partap Singh. This Supreme Court order had remitted matters concerning faceless proceedings to the respective High Courts, allowing petitioners to question the constitutional validity of Section 147-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The High Court had previously disposed of the writ petition with liberty to either party to seek revival based on the Supreme Court's outcome.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the order dated June 24, 2025, passed in W.P. No. 17521 of 2025 should be recalled in light of the Supreme Court's order dated April 10, 2026, in Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh & Ors. v. Tej Partap Singh. Assessee's Contention (Implicit): The assessee, by not opposing the recall and having been granted liberty to seek revival, implicitly supports the recall of the order to allow for fresh adjudication in light of the Supreme Court's directive. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue contended that the Supreme Court's decision in the faceless batch cases, which remitted matters to the High Courts and permitted challenges to the constitutional validity of Section 147-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, necessitated the recall of the earlier order. The Revenue argued that the High Court had previously disposed of the writ petition with liberty to move for revival subject to the Supreme Court's outcome.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following ORDER l.A.No.1 ol 2026 is filed by the respondent / lncorre Tax Department seeking for the recalling the order, dated 24-6-2025, in W.P No.17521 of 2025 in terms of recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court ir the faceless batch which was decided on 10-4-2026, whereby the matters were all remitted to the respective High Courts, permitting the petitioners therein to question the constitutional validity of the provision under Section 147-A ol lncome Tax Act, 1961 . This Court while disposing of the instant writ petition at the first instant, had granted the liberty to the either of the parties to move proper application for revival, subject to the outcome of the matters pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court pertaining to the faceless proceedings. Given the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has itsr:lf remitted all those matters pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the respective High Gourts. We are of the considered opinion that a strong case fc,r recalling the order dated 24-06-2025 has also been made out. Accordingly, l.A. No.'l of 2026 stands allowed and the earlier order stands recalled. SD/.,M.OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Income Tax Officer, ward 5(1), income Tax Departnent, Hyderabad.
The Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department, National e-Assessment Center New Delhi, Room No 401, 2nd Floor, E-Ranrp Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, New Delhi 110 003
The Section Officer, Non - Service Section, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. G
The Section Officer, Posting Section, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.
One CC to SRI HIMANGINI SANGH|, Advocate IOPUCI
One CC to SRI KAMASANI SUDHAKAR REDDY, SC FOR TNCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, Advocate [OPUC]
Two CD Copies SA+
HIGH COURT DATED: 1710812026 List on 27-8-2026 alons with batch ORDER !.A.NO.1 0F 2026 IN WP.NO.17521 0F 2025 ALLOWING THE I.A N] I _./_,- ,/io* 'iq -) J :- 1 I A T r{ S L C Drspai E tl 2 sEP 2l2t Yz C)b *u \\ 'i -\: 3,lel,e i
More judgments on Section 147-A
- Pushkar Vishwas, Bulandshahr vs Income Tax Officer Ward 3(3), BulandshahrITA 5661/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: Disposed11 Nov 2025AY 2011-12
- Jaivir, Sonepat vs Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, SonepatITA 3275/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed12 Sept 2025AY 2012-13
- Impressions Services Private Limited, Delhi vs ADIT Circle 10(1), DelhiITA 3275/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed5 Mar 2025AY 2018-19
- Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Sadhuram G AndaniITR/103/19955 Dec 2014
- C.I.T vs Motichand Virpal ShahITR/36/20037 Nov 2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
