NITIN ENTERPRISES vs. Income-tax Officer Ward - 5(1)

PDF · subscribers
WP/17627/2025HC TelanganaHBHC01035038202524 June 2025Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, in its order dated September 2, 2026, did not decide the merits of the case. Instead, it listed the writ petition along with a batch of similar cases. The Court granted an interim stay of the impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. This interim stay was granted in light of an order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dairy No. 2196 of 2026 and batch, decided on April 10, 2026. The operative direction was to grant an interim stay of the impugned order. No specific finding was made on the validity of the notice or the arguments presented by the assessee. The issue of whether the notice was correctly issued by the appropriate authority remains undecided on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Nitin Enterprises, represented by its partner Vipin Ramesh Gulabani, filed a writ petition before the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. The petition challenges a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated March 28, 2025, for Assessment Year 2021-22. The DIN number of the notice is ITBA/AST/s148t2024-25/1075205448(1). The petitioner contends that the notice was issued by the Income Tax Officer (1st Respondent) instead of the Assessing Officer (FAO), which they argue is void, illegal, and contrary to the Income Tax Act and principles of natural justice. The respondents are the Income Tax Officer, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, and the Central Board of Direct Tax. The High Court, in its order dated September 2, 2026, listed the matter along with a batch of cases and granted an interim stay of the impugned notice.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated March 28, 2025, for A.Y. 2021-22, is void, illegal, and contrary to the provisions of the Income Tax Act and principles of natural justice, on the ground that it was issued by the Income Tax Officer instead of the Assessing Officer (FAO)? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argues that the notice issued under Section 148 is void and illegal because it was issued by the Income Tax Officer (1st Respondent) and not by the Assessing Officer (FAO), violating the Income Tax Act and principles of natural justice. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue at this stage.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

13447 | IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (SPecial Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION NO:1 7627 0F 2025 Between: AND NITINENTERPRISES'vipinRameshGulabanis/oRameshGulabaniaged42 years Occ. Business partner in petitioner firm 5-1-595/5' Ravi Nilayam Ground Fi*r, Sv"o Juns Lane Troop Bazar, Hvderabad -s00095 PAN' AAG_FN3li3k=- 1. lncometax Officer Ward - 5(1), Hyderabad lT Tower' AC Guards' Masab Tank, HYderabad-500004 2.PrCommissioneroflncomeTax4,Hyderabad,sthfloor'D-Block'lncomeTax Towers,10-2-3, AC Guards, Hyderabad' 3. Central Board of Direct Tax, ientral Board of Direct Tax Through the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block' New Delhi -1]333Jo*or"r. Petition under Article 226 ol the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstancesstatedintheaffidavitfiledtherewith,theHighCourtmaybepleased toissueanappropriatewritorderordirectionmoreparticularlyoneinthenatureof Wnt of Mandamus, declaring the Notice u/s 148 of the lncome Tax Act dated 28.03.2025forA.Y.2021-2zvideDlNNo.ITBA/AST/s148t2024-2511075205448(1) issuedbytheJAO(lstRespondent)insteadofFAO,asvoid'illegal'andcontraryto theprovisionsoflncomeTaxActandcontrarytothePrinciplesofNaturalJustice, Counsel for.the Petitioner: SRI DUNDU SASHANK MANMOHAN Counsel for Respondents: SRI K. SUDHAKAR REDDY' SR. SC FOR INCOME TAX The Court made the following: ORDER List along with batch

-*--E=:!}*-:- Meanwhile, there shall be interim stay of the impugned order, in the light of the order granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order in Dairy NO.2196 ot 2026 and batch decided on 10.04.2026 SD/.P. PRAMOD NAIK ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTIO 1. The lncometax Officer Ward - 5(1), Hyderabad lT Tower, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad-500004 2. The Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax 4, Hyderabad, Bth floor, D-Block, lncome Tax Towers,10-2-3, AC Guards, Hyderabad. 3. Central Board of Direct Tax, Central Board of Direct Tax Through the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi -1 10001. 4. One CC to Sri Dundu Sashank Manmohan Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri K. Sudhakar Reddy (SENIOR SC INCOME TAX) Advocate loPUcl 6. Two CD Copies h- N-OfFICER To, PSR TKS

(2 drafts) HIGH COURT DATED: 0210912026 rt'.r: T4 Tt \;t .:) vzo 3 240[IM i-."1'::r'1:( ":/ ORDER WP.No.17627 ot 2025 INTER!M STAY

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →