PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY CHINTAKANI vs. The income tax officer ward 1,

WP/27351/2024HC TelanganaHBHC01053253202401 May 2025Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that a strong case had been made out for recalling the order dated 01.05.2025. The reasoning was based on the fact that the Supreme Court itself had remitted matters pending before it to the respective High Courts. This Supreme Court order, concerning faceless proceedings and allowing for challenges to Section 142-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, directly impacted the context in which the earlier High Court order was passed. Therefore, the High Court allowed the interlocutory application (I.A. No. 1 of 2026) and recalled the earlier order. The operative direction was the recalling of the order dated 01.05.2025, paving the way for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The Income Tax Department (Petitioners) filed an interlocutory application (I.A. No. 1 of 2026) seeking to recall an order dated 01.05.2025 passed in Writ Petition No. 27351 of 2024. The original writ petition was filed by the Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Chintakani (Respondent/Writ Petitioner) for the assessment year 2018-19. The department's application was based on a recent Supreme Court decision dated 10.04.2026 in a batch of cases concerning faceless proceedings. The Supreme Court had remitted these matters to the respective High Courts, allowing petitioners to question the constitutional validity of Section 142-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The High Court had previously disposed of the writ petition with liberty to the parties to seek revival pending the Supreme Court's decision.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order dated 01.05.2025 passed in W.P. No. 27351 of 2024 should be recalled 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 directions regarding faceless proceedings and the constitutional validity of Section 142-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention (Implicit): The assessee would likely argue that the Supreme Court's decision necessitates a review of the earlier High Court order, especially since the Supreme Court has remitted matters for fresh consideration and allowed challenges to Section 142-A. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue contended that the Supreme Court's decision in the faceless batch, which remitted matters to High Courts and permitted challenges to Section 142-A, warrants the recalling of the earlier High Court order dated 01.05.2025 to allow for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 142-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

13447 | IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA tA NO. 1 0F 2026 IN WRIT PETITION NO: 27351 OF 2024 Between: 1. The income tax officer ward 1, Khammam/ lncome Tax Office, Rajeev Gunt, Rajiv Chowk, Near Kinnerasani Theatre, Khammam Telangana State. 2. The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax, Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank,Hyderabad 500 028, Telangana. 3. The National Faceless Assessment Center, lncome Tax Department, New Delhi. 4. The Central Board of Direct Taxes, Represented by its Chairman, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of lndia, Secretariat Buildings' New Delhi - 110 001 . 5. The Union of lndia, Represented by its Secretary to the Government, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi - 110 001 . ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS AND 1. PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY CHINTAKANI, Rep. By its Secretary IUARAGANI SRINIVASRAO, S/o.BHUSAIAH MARAGANI, Occupation. Business Aged about 41 years, Ri,/O. Main Road Chintakani At Chintakani Po Chintakani, Khammam 507208, Telangana, lndia. Assessment Year. 2018-19 .,.RESPONDENT/WRIT 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 the order dated 01.05.2025 passed in W.P. No. 2735112024 for fresh 1

) adjudication in light 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 Counsel for the Petitioners: MS. KAMSANI SUDHAKAR REDDY (sR. sc FoR tNcoME TAX) Counsel for the Respondent: SRl. THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR The Court made the following: ORDER l.A.No.l of 2026 is filed by the respondent/lncome Tax Department seeking for the recalling the order, dated 01.05.202s, in wp.No.273i1 of 2024 in terms of recent decision of the Hon'ble supreme court in the faceless batch which was decided on 10.04.2026, 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 l4z-A of lncome Tax Act, 1961. This court while disposing of the instant writ petition at the first instant, had granted the libedy 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'bte supreme court has itself remitted a those matters pending before the Hon'ble supreme court b the respective High Courts. we are of the considered opinion that a strong case for reca ing the order dated 01.05.2025 has also been made out. Accordingly, lA No.l of 2026 stands allowed and the earlier order stands recalled. SD/. M. OSMAN ,TRUE COPY// (STANT RE ALI BAIG GISTRAR $CTION OFFICER ASS fo, 2 The lncome Tax officer ward i, Khammam/ rncome Tax office, Rajeev Gunt, Rajiv Chowk, Near Krnnerasani Theatre, Khammam Telangana State. The Principal Chief Commissiolel^oj lncome Tax HyJerabad, lT Towers, AC Guards. A,4asab Tank.Hyderabad 500 02g. felangan;.-' ,)

3 3. The National Faceless Assessment Center, lncome Tax Department, New Delhi. 4. The Chairman,Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of lndia, Secretariat Buildings, New Delhi - 1 10 001 5. The Secretary to the Government, Union of lndia, Depa(ment of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi - 110 001 . 6. The Section Officer, Writ Division Bench, Section High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad 7. The Section Officer, Posting Section , High Court for the State of Telangana , Hyderabad S One CC to SRl. THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR Advocate tOpUCl 9. One CC to SRl. KAIMASANI SUDHAKAR REDDY (Sr. SC FOR |NCO|VE rAX)IOPUC] 10.Two CD Copies BM TKS r*

I 2 DRAFTS HIGH COURT DATED: 3110812026 ORDER tA. NO. 1_2026 IN WP.No.27351 of 2024 IA IS ALLOWED cR "t H t .,(. zo A r9 (_, ,-r i- el " l,e 10 StP 20ffi Pp.-iCH * ) oU .1

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →