Smt. Uma Pungoti Ravinder vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

PDF · subscribers
WP/11417/2025HC TelanganaHBHC01022831202513 August 2025Bench: APARESH KUMAR SINGH,G.M. MOHIUDDIN5 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department raised objections regarding the maintainability of the writ petition and suggested that the petitioner should have pursued the alternative remedy of appeal. Following these arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition to avail the appropriate remedy under the law. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn, granting the petitioner liberty to pursue the alternative remedy. No order was made as to costs. Any pending miscellaneous applications were also closed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Smt. Uma Pungoti Ravinder, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad. The petition challenged a notice dated 08.04.2022 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner also sought to set aside the assessment order for assessment year 2015-16 passed under Section 147 read with Section 144, and penalty orders passed under Sections 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 30.05.2024, 08.03.2024, and 07.03.2025, respectively. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus declaring the notice and subsequent orders as without jurisdiction, arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, and void ab initio, and also violative of Sections 148A, 149, and 151A of the Act, and contrary to CBDT circulars.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 08.04.2022 issued by the Respondent under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, with DIN and Notice No. ITBA/AST/S/148_112023-24/1042669705(1) is without jurisdiction, arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, void ab initio, and violative of Sections 148A, 149, and 151A of the Act, and contrary to CBDT circulars? 2. Whether the assessment order passed by the Respondent for assessment year 2015-16 under Section 147 read with Section 144, and the penalty orders passed under Sections 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) of the Act, are liable to be set aside? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notice under Section 148 and the subsequent assessment and penalty orders were without jurisdiction, arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, void ab initio, and violative of specific provisions of the Act and CBDT circulars. The petitioner sought to quash these actions. Revenue's Contention: The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department raised an objection to the maintainability of the writ petition and contended that the petitioner should have availed the alternative remedy of appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 144,Section 271(1)(b),Section 271(1)(c),Section 148A,Section 149,Section 151A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[ 3488 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN WRIT PETITION NO: 11417 OF 2025 Between: Smt. Uma Pungoti Ravinder, W/o. Late Sri Ravinder Pungoti, Aged about 73 years. Occupation. House Wife, 88 Wood Duck Court Free Hold. New Jersey 07728, USA. Hyderabad Address. Flat No.302, Gayatri Plaza, Jyothi Colony, Kakaguda, Tirumalagiri, Secunderabad - 50001 5. ...PETITIONER AND The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle INT TAX 3(1)(1), Civic Centre, I\/into Road, New Delhi - 110002. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 oI the Constitution of lndra praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order or direction. especial one in the nature of WRIT OF IMANDAIVIUS holding that the notice dated 08.04.2022 issued by the Respondent under section '148 of the Act with DIN and Notice No.ITBA/AST/S/148_112023- 2411042669705( 1 ) as being without jurisdiction. arbitrary illegal, bad in law, void ab initio, apart from being violative of provisions of section 14BA and section '149 of the Act and also contrary to the circular issued by CBDT and provisions of section 15'1A of the Act, and consequently set aside the notice under section 148 dated 08.04.2O22, the assessment order passed by Respondent for asst. year 2015-16 under sectionl4T r.w.s 144 of the Act. Penalty orders passed u/s.271(1)(b) and uls.271(1)(c) of the Act, dt.30.05.2024, 08.03.2024 and 07 .03.2025. respectively

lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition undr-.r llection 151 CPC praying that in the circ:umstances s:ated in the affidavit filed in st pport of the petition, the High Court ma1, be pleased to stay of collection of tax a rd penalty demand raised by the Respondent pursuant to passing assessment arnd penalty orders for the Ay.20.1 5-16 Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. A. V. RAGHU RAM Counsel for the Respondents: SRI VIJHAY K PUNNA (SENtOR SC FOR tTD) The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HON'BLE THD CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARDSH KI'MAR SINGH AI\ID THE HON'BLE SRT JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN WRIT PETITION No.11417 of 2O25 ORDER: Mr. A.V.Raghu Ram, learned counsei for the petitioner. Mr. Vrjhay K Punna, learned Senior Star-rding Cor-rnsel for Income Tax Department appears for the respondent. 2. This writ petition has been preferred with the Ibllowing prayer: "lt is prayed that this Hon'ble Corrrt rnal' be pleasecl to pass an order or direction, especially one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS holding that the notice dated Oa.O4.2O22 issued by the Respondent under section 1.18 of the Act {'"vith DIN and Notice No. ITBA/AST/S/ 144 l/ 2023-24 / 1042669705(i)l as being wilhout jnrisdiction, arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, void ab initio. apar-t frorn being \.iolative of provisions of section 148A & section f.i9 of the Act and also contrary to the circular issued by CISDT and provisions of section 15IA of the Act, and consequently set aside the notice under section 148 dated O8.O4.2O22, the assessment order passed by Respondent for asst. year 2015 t6 under section 147 r.w.s 144 ofthe Act, Penalty orders passed u/s 27|(l)(b) ar-trl u/s 271(1)[c) of the Act. dt.3O.O5.2O24, OA.O3.2O24 and 07.O3.2025, I , \

G To, BIV LS resl)ec i\.ely, and pass sucli other order (s) as ttr,: Hon'ble (louIt leenrs fit ancl proper ill tlle urLerest of-ilrsti(c." 3. I'here is alt objection to thc maintaillabilitv ol tl.c wri[ peli tion by the lcarrrccl Senior Starding Counsel firr hrcornc ''ar. Department ancl also that the petitioner should havc ar.ailecl t.l-re alternativc remedy of appeai. 'lhercfor,:, :lfter so lc arrguments, lezu-ned counsel for the petitionor secks p( r-nrission 10 \\,ilhdraw the rvrit pctitioll in ordel ro avail lhe al,propriatc rernedy Llnder law. 4. The instanl \\,'r-it pctition is accordingly dismissed as rvithdrarr.n u'ith the aloresaid liberty. However, there sharll be no orrler as Lo cosls. Miscellarneous applications pending, if ariv, shall stand closed. SD/.P. PONNA KFIISHNA REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// ON OI:FICER 1. One CC to SRI A. V RAGHU RAlt/, Advocate IOPUC] 2. one CC to SRI VIJHAY K PUNNA, (SENIOR SC FOR ITD) [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT DATED:1AA812025 :---\ ,, / r: I- (( Y_., ,({ 1 Hf- S I 2B 0il 20m < /.,/ \,/../ ORDER WP.No.11417 of 2025 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS WITHDRAWN WITHOUT COSTS I \E la{ t-

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →