Rajshekar Reddy Madireddy vs. The Income Tax Officer

PDF · subscribers
WP/11819/2025HC TelanganaHBHC01023790202516 June 2025Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed I.A.No.1 of 2026, thereby recalling its earlier order dated 16.06.2025 passed in W.P.No.11819/2025. The Court reasoned that the Supreme Court, in the case of Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh & Ors v Tej Partap Singh, had itself remitted matters pending before it to the respective High Courts. Given this development, the High Court found a strong case for recalling its own order, which had granted liberty to the petitioners subject to the outcome of faceless proceedings matters. The operative direction was to recall the order dated 16.06.2025, implying that the writ petition would now be adjudicated afresh in light of the Supreme Court's directive. No specific issue was left undecided, as the application for recall was allowed.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, Raishekar Reddy Madireddy and another, filed a writ petition (W.P.No.11819/2025) before the High Court. The High Court, by an order dated 16.06.2025, granted liberty to the petitioners to pursue their remedies before the appropriate forum, subject to the outcome of matters pending before the Supreme Court concerning faceless proceedings. Subsequently, the petitioners filed an interlocutory application (I.A.No.1 of 2026) seeking to revive/recall the order dated 16.06.2025. This application was filed in light of a Supreme Court order dated 10.04.2026 in the case of Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh & Ors v Tej Partap Singh, which remitted similar matters. The Income Tax Department, represented by the respondent, sought the recall of the High Court's earlier order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court's order dated 16.06.2025, passed in W.P.No.11819/2025, should be recalled or revived for fresh adjudication in light of the Supreme Court's order dated 10.04.2026. This issue turns on the interpretation and application of the Supreme Court's decision concerning faceless proceedings and its impact on pending matters before High Courts. The Assessee's Contention: The petitioners (assessee) argued that the Supreme Court's order in Tej Partap Singh's case, which remitted matters concerning faceless proceedings, necessitates the recall of the High Court's earlier order. They contended that the liberty granted was subject to the outcome of such matters, and the Supreme Court's decision has now provided a clear direction. The Revenue's Contention: The respondent (Revenue) sought the recall of the High Court's order, acknowledging the Supreme Court's decision and its implications for the present case. They did not appear to contest the recall.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 151

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

,N rH E H, GH " "' Tf fl $r'Xff[r:l*,o, jr"** n o* o (SPecial Origi M oN D Ar r H E SSXiNl'f.i[ T'iil-,"f $l " "' THE HONOURAB AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PRESENT LE SRI JUSTICE P'SAM KOSHY NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA .No.1 OF 20 118 26 19 .A TITt IN N OF 2025 ON oi WRIT E P Between: AND 1. 2. 3 5,;t,C#lnn'.fltai['$$ruf ;JIil l{*t-***-ll"u#J,tl$l*'g*11"""J"{ffi l.u":"*''ii'i"oFoor'E. .....PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS Raishekar ReddY Mad OccuPation.Partner tn Gundla PochamPallY, K ireddv. S/o Ranga Reddy tvladireddy' Aged about S4years' a Firm, Villa.No l1s'Apana ''p'it-ft'ftj'0"*s Welfare Society' 'ro",iv iyoeraoao,reiangana-50001 4' RESPONDENTMRIT PETITIONER 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 revive/recall theorderdated16.06.2025passedinW.P.No.118,t9/2025forfreshadjudicationinlight of the Order dated 10'04 2026 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in lncome Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh & Ors' v Tej Partap Singh'

ll-E!trE lhe earlier order stands recalled To orr,?T{ REGTSTRAR beLr\oru oFFrcER ftrffiif[+ir".i,Titioner : sRr KAMAsANT s uDH counserror the Responr",," :., :--:::'""**R REDDY' sc FoR rNcon,E rhe court made the,.,,:; o::'.1'*o'MANM.HAN i.A.No.1 of 2026 is the recalring the order, o,t"uo o'the respondent / lnc decision of the Hon,bre ,rted '16-6-2025 't * ',,".r"'e Tax Department seeking for 'ro-4-2o26,whereby ,n" 'o'"'" court in the facele of 2025 in terms of recent permitting the petitioners ,,""u" were all remitted ss batch which was decided on under S ection, o r-o "r, r."',i'"t ;:;X; ;lT;# tn,:ffi ; ;:i rr::: This Court while dis sranted the berty,",,,. J;:::,:IJH::I ;:,:"Jn::Ji.liLlllLlll subject to the outcome of the matters pending before the Hon,bre supreme court pertaining to the faceless proceedings. Given the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme court has itserf remitted a, those rnatters pending before the Hon'bre supreme court to the respective High courts. we are of the considered opinion that a strong case for recaring the order dated 16-06-2025 has also been made out. Accordingry, r.A.No.1 of 2026 stands ailowed and SD/- C.DEEPIKA /ffRUE COPY// '1 . The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 15(1), Hyderabad, lT Tower, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyd erabad, Telangana-500004. 2. The Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax 4, Hyderabad, l.T. Tower, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad-500004. 3. The Assessment Unit, lncome Tax, Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, Ministry of Finance, Room No. 401, 2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi-110003. 4. One CC to SRI DUNDU MANMOHAN' Advocate [oPUCl

SA TKS 5, One CC tO SRI KAMASANI SUDHAKAR REDDY, SC FOR INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies ?q'

HIGH COURT DATED: 1710812026 List on 27-8-2026 alon with batch \e o I \\E 5TAl"6 slStP s6 t DESPA.T 92 6\ t ORDER I.A.NO.1 0F 2026 IN WP.No.11819 of 2025 ALLOWING THE I.A. .4i.r-s a -f'? orloq 116

More judgments on Section 151

All 4,323 judgments and leading authorities on Section 151 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →