Smt. Srilatha Sara vs. The Income Tax Officer

PDF · subscribers
WP/27390/2024HC TelanganaHBHC01053308202430 April 2025Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, in its order dated August 31, 2026, has granted an interim stay of the impugned order. This interim stay is in light of an order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Diary No. 2196 of 2026 and batch, decided on April 10, 2026. The Court has directed that the matter be listed along with a batch of similar cases. No final decision on the merits of the issues has been rendered at this stage; the order pertains solely to the grant of interim relief. The specific reasoning for the interim stay is based on the Supreme Court's order, but the details of that order are not provided. The operative direction is the interim stay of the impugned order.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Smt. Srilatha Sara, has filed a writ petition before the High Court of Telangana challenging a notice dated March 27, 2023, issued by the 3rd Respondent (Income Tax Officer, Ward - 15(1)) under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner contends that this notice is without jurisdiction, arbitrary, illegal, and void ab initio. The petition also seeks to set aside the notice, as well as assessment and penalty orders passed by the 1st Respondent (Income Tax Officer, Ward - 16(3)) for Assessment Year 2016-17 under Sections 147 read with 144, 271F, and 271(1)(c) of the Act. An interim stay on the collection of tax and penalty demands for AY 2016-17 has also been sought.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 27.03.2023 issued by the 3rd Respondent under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is without jurisdiction, arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, void ab initio, and violative of Sections 14BA, 149, and 151A of the Act, and contrary to CBDT circulars. The Petitioner argues that the notice suffers from these fatal flaws. The Revenue's contentions are not recorded in the provided text. 2. Whether the assessment and penalty orders passed by the 1st Respondent for AY 2016-17 under Sections 147 r.w.s 144, 271F, and 271(1)(c) of the Act are liable to be set aside. The Petitioner seeks to set aside these orders based on the alleged illegality of the Section 148 notice. The Revenue's contentions are not recorded.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 144,Section 271F,Section 271(1)(c),Section 14BA,Section 149,Section 151A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[ae++1 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 WRIT PETITION NO: 27390 OF 2024 Between: Smt. Srilatha Sara, D/o. Sri Boreda Shanker Roa, Aged about 45 years, Occ: Private Service, 2-28, Upparapally, Thumkunta, R.R. District - 500078. ...PETITIONER AND 1 The lncome Tax Officer, Ward - 16(3), l.T. Towers, A.C. Guards, Masabtank, Hyderabad -500004. Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, lncome Tax Department, Ministry of Finance, Room No. 401 ,2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi -1 10 003. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward -15(1), I.T. Towers, A.C. Guards, Masabtank, Hyderabad - 500004. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order or direction, especially one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAI\,IUS holding that the notice dated 27.03.2023 issued by 3rd Respondent under section '148 of the Act [with DIN and Notice No.ITBA/AST/S/148- 112022- 23l1051388019(1 )11 as being without jurisdiction, arbltrary, 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 1 51A of the Act, and consequently set aside the notice under section 1 48 dated 27 .03.2023 and the assessment and penalty orders passed by 1st Respondent for asst. year 2016-17 under section 147 r.w.s 144, uls.271F u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, respectively. 2 3

l.A. NO: 1OF 2024 Petition under {iection 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the collection of taxand penaltydemands raised by 1st Respondent for the Ay.2016-17. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI A.V.RAGHU RAM Counsel for the Respondents: SRI K. SUDHAKAR REDDy (Jr. SC FOR INCOME TAX) The Court made the following: ORDER List along w th batch. 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 Diary No.2196 of 2026 and batch decided on 10.04.2026. ,TRUE COPY// SD/- P.C. SULEKHA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR >- ,- SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The lncome lax-Officer, Ward - 16(3), l.T. Towers, A.C. Guards, Masabtank, Hyderabad -500004. Jhe Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, lncome Tax Departmenl l,4inistry of Finance,. Room N9 401 ,2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nr;hru Stadium, Delhi -i 10 003. The lncome-l.q1Q-fflcelWard -t, LT. Towers, A.C. Guards, Masabtank, Hyderabad - {'00004. 15(1). The Section ()fficer, Writ D.B. Section, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad The Section C)fficer, Posting Section, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad 9ne 9Q to Sr A.V.Raghu Ram. Advocate. [OpUC] One CC to Sr K. Sudhakar Reddy, SC for lhcomeiax Department. tOpUCl Two CD Copir-'s. 2 J 4 5 b 7 B TJ GJP

HIGH COURT DATED: 3110812026 ORDER WP.No.27390 of 2024 INTERIM ST,AY TWO DRAFTS oIa {r lrE Sih I o ( ;! :] SEP 216 P,:i t- t:/ I .)r ^lI >l q >(

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →