Ikigai Ken Foundation vs. Income Tax Officer

PDF · subscribers
WP/14742/2025HC TelanganaHBHC01029074202507 July 2025Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA8 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition to the extent that the impugned assessment order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication. The Court found that while the revenue claimed notices were issued, there was no material produced to show that the registered email IDs of both directors, Mr. N.V. Murali Krishna Mullapudi and Mr. Krishna Rao, were the same. Crucially, it was admitted that no notice under Section 133(6) was issued to Mr. N.V. Murali Krishna Mullapudi, the main director whose email ID was used for company filings. This was considered a denial of a fair opportunity of hearing to the company and one of its directors. The Court directed that a fresh notice under Section 133(6) be issued to Mr. N.V. Murali Krishna Mullapudi on the company's email ID within two weeks, allowing the petitioner a reasonable period to respond, after which the Assessing Officer could proceed to pass appropriate orders. No costs were awarded.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ikioai Ken Foundation, a Section 8 Company, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated January 30, 2025, for the assessment year 2023-2024. The primary contention was that notices issued by the Income Tax Department, specifically under Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were not properly served. The petitioner argued that initial notices were not issued in the company's name, were not served upon the company, and were sent to a director, Mr. Krishna Rao, whose email ID was not the one the company had been using for filings for several years. The revenue contended that the petitioner should have availed the statutory remedy of appeal and that the notice to Mr. Krishna Rao was duly served as his email ID was registered with the department.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued by the Income Tax Department under Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were properly served on the petitioner company, considering the email IDs used for communication and the roles of its directors? The Assessee (Petitioner) argued that notices were not properly served because they were not issued in the company's name, not served on the company, and sent to a director (Mr. Krishna Rao) whose email ID was not the company's registered email for filings. They relied on the fact that the main director, Mr. N.V. Murali Krishna Mullapudi, whose email ID was consistently used for filings, did not receive a notice. The Revenue (Respondents) argued that the petitioner should have pursued the statutory remedy of appeal. They contended that the notice to Mr. Krishna Rao was duly served as his email ID was registered with the department, and it was not disputed that he received the mail.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 133(6),Section 147(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

13447 l lkioai Ken Foundation. (A Section 8 Company registered under the Companies Act' zbi5l n". ioi-ozz.n.i. Guards, Anand Nag-ar Khairatabad, Hvderabad,.l"l?!9.11" - SOObO+ Represented by its Director, Shri. Naga Venkata Murali Krishna Mullapuql. HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION NO: 1 47420F 2025 Between: Writ of Certiorari to set aside the assessment order bearing No' ITBAJAST/S/143(3)12024-2511072717060(1) dated 3010112025 passed Respondent No. 3 and all actions consequent and attendant thereto' ,....PETITIONER AND 1. lncome Tax Officer, Exemption Ward 1(2), Hyd Aayakar Bhavan, Near LB Stadium Hyderabad, Telangana - 500004- 2. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Aayakar Bhavan' Near LB Stadium Hyderabad, Telangana. 3.CentralBoardofDirectTaxes,Centralsecretariat,NorthBlock,NewDelhi- - iroooi nepr.sent"a byAssessment officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Anicle 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleasedtoissueanappropriateWritordirectionmoreparticularlyinthenatureof DIN by

Petition Under section 151 cpc praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the impugned assessment order in Exhibit p3 bearing No. DIN l.A.NO:2 OF 2025 rTBA/AST/S/ 1 43(3)t2024_25t 1 07 27 17 060(1) Respondent No.3, including any recovery, attendant thereto. dated 30.01.2025 passed by penalty and consequent actions Counsel for the petitioner : SRI SANTOSH SAGAR KAptLAVAt Counsel for the Respondents : SRI VtJAy K.PUNNA (SEN|OR SC FOR CB|C) The Court made the following ORDER

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRTJUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No. 14742 of2025 C)RDER, (per Hon'ble Sri .lustice P Sam Koshy) Heard Mr. Santosh Sagar Kapilavai, learned counsel fbr the petitioner and Mr. Vijay K' Punna' leaned Senior Standing Counsel for the lncome Tax Department appearing lor the respondents. Perused the record' 2. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the assessment order, dated 30.Ol '2024, for the assessment year 2023- 2024. 3. The challenge prirnarily was that of notices thosc werc issued by the Department in the initiai stage bef-ore the notice under Section l4? (1) of the Income Tax Act' i96l (fbr short'thc Act') was issue<i to the petitioner company were not hrstly' issued in favour of the company' Secondly, it r'vas never servcd upon the petitioner company and thirdly it was issued to the one of thc Directors, viz.,Mr. Krishna Rao, who do not have much saf in the role of the company and it was not the email ID on rl'hich the petitioner company has been submitting its retums since past

2 mallv yea's. Ilence, it has to be tieated that a notice issued under Section 133 (6) to the Directors to have not been properly served. 4. On the other hand, the leamed Senior Standing Counsel for the Incornc 'l-ar Dcpartrnent opposing the petition submits that the petitioner at the outset ought to have availed the statutory alternarive remedy of appeal before knocking the doors of this Court under the r.vrit jurisdiction. He further submits that undoubtcdl_i., the notice under Section 133 (6) was issued to one of the Directors of the petitioner company by narne Mr. Krishna Rao, and therc does not seem to have any dispute that the mail ha'ing not becn received by the said Director of the said compan-v. ln view ol- the same the learned Senior Standing Clounsel subnrits rhat rhe notice issued under Section 133 (6) has to be accepted as duly served and the petitioner should not be pennittcd to take that ground now as the said emair ID was registered w.ith the Department, so far as the said person Mr. Krishna Rao is concemed. 5. Having heard the contentions putforth on either side and on perusal olthc records, what we find is that there appears to be two Directols irr the said company. The main Director is .\

3 Mr. N.V. Murali Krishna Mullapudi, whose email ID was the same that the company has and it is the satne email ID in which the returns of the company has been filed for the past many years' 6. tt is also the case that the said person viz., Mr' N'V. Murali Krishna Mullapudi, who was the main partner who runs the company and not the other person viz., Mr. Krishna Rao' 7. Upon verification of facts and also on a query put to the lcamed Senior Standing Counsel, admittedly, no notice under Section 133 (6) has been issued against the said Direclor viz', Mr' N.V. Murali Krishna Mullapudi, whose ernail lD was that the company has and on which the returns were also filed' 8. However, the learned Senior Standing Counsel submits that so f-ar as Mr. N.V. Murali Krishna Mullapudi is concemed, he too was issued with a notice, but the mail was sent on the enlail ID which was also been used by Mr. Krishna Rao and therefbre' it cannot be presumed that Mr. N.V. Murali Krishna Mullapudi, was not issued or served with the notice. g. Perusal of the records would go to show that there is no material produced by the respondents showing thc registered ernait Il) of the two padners viz', Mr' N'V' Murali Krishna

4 Mullapudi and Mr. Krishna Rao to be same. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that there does not seem to be any notice issued to the rnain Dircctor of the petitioner company viz., Mr. N.V. N,lurali Krishna Mullapudi, and thus it can be safely said that there appears to bc denial of fair opportunity of hearing to one of the Directors ol- the company as also to the company. There|ore, rhe intpugned assessment order to the aforesaid extent is tiable to be intcrdicted with and the matter deserves to be remitred back lor a fiesh adjudication of the same. 10. In viev,", of thc same. let a fresh notice under Section I33 (6) be issued to Mr. N.V. Murali Krishna Muilapudi, who has the email ID of the conrpany. [.et the email be sent on the said email ID within a period of rwo weeks (02) and thereafter let the petitioner. respond kr the said notice within a reasonable period provided by the respondenrs in the notice itself and thereafter the Assessing Ofllccr rnay proceed further and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with [aw. I l. Accordinqlv, the present writ petition stands allowed to the aforesaid extent. -l'hcre shall be no order as to costs.

5 To SA BM Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shalt stand closed SD/. B. REKHA RANI s TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER 1 . The lncome Tax Officer, Exemption Ward 1(2), Hyd yakar Bhavan, Near LB Stadium Hyderabad, Telangana - 50.0004. 2. The Commissioner of lncome Tax Exemptions, Aayakar Bhavan, Near LB Stadium Hyderabad, Telangana. 3. The Assessment Officer, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Central Secretariat, North Block, New Delhi - 1 10001 , National Faceless Assessment Centre. 4. One CC to SRI SANTOSH SAGAR KAPILAVAI, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to SRI VUHAY K.PUNNA (SENIOR SC FOR CBIC) Advocate loPUCl 6. Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT DATED:07 t07 t2O2S ORDER WP.No.14t42 of 2O2S ALLOWING THE W.P WTHOUT COSTS. r) c i'4 /t'.r, R -I HF: .S a 14 AUE M o -\ + , TCHEL] i \ t.

More judgments on Section 133(6)

All 7,227 judgments and leading authorities on Section 133(6) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →