Shilpi Real Estates, vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(1),

PDF · subscribers
WP/28079/2024HC TelanganaHBHC01054581202425 April 2025Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, in its interim order, has granted a stay on the impugned notice and order. The Court has listed the matter along with a batch of similar cases. The interim stay has been granted in light of an order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Diary No. 2196 of 2026 and 1615 decided on 10.04.2026. The specific reasoning for the interim stay, beyond referencing the Supreme Court's order, is not detailed in this excerpt. The ultimate decision on the merits of the case is pending further proceedings.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shilpi Real Estates, represented by its Managing Partner, has filed a Writ Petition before the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. The petition challenges a notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated March 13, 2024, an order passed under Section 148A(d) dated March 30, 2024, and a notice issued under Section 148 dated March 30, 2024. These actions were purportedly taken by the Income Tax Officer Ward 4(1), Hyderabad (1st respondent), instead of the Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (3rd respondent), for Assessment Year 2017-18. The petitioner contends these actions are void, illegal, and contrary to the Income Tax Act and principles of natural justice.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148A(b) dated 13.03.2024, the order passed under Section 148A(d) dated 30.03.2024, and the notice issued under Section 148 dated 30.03.2024, for AY 2017-18, are void, illegal, and contrary to the provisions of the Income Tax Act and principles of natural justice, by reason of being issued by the Income Tax Officer Ward 4(1) instead of the Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that the notices and order were issued by the wrong authority, violating the established procedure under the Income Tax Act and the principles of natural justice. They rely on the Supreme Court's order in Diary No. 2196 of 2026 and 1615 decided on 10.04.2026, which likely pertains to procedural irregularities in faceless assessments. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

5 134471 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION NO: 28079 OF 2024 Between: Shilpi Real Estates, Rep by. Managing Partner Vedere Sucharitha Reddy Aged about 60 years, W/o Vedere Ram Reddy, Meenakshi Bamboos, Villa No. 100, H'No' 1-66, Opp. AIG Hospital, Gachibowli, Ranga Reddy, Telangana-500032 ...PETITIONER AND 1. lncome Tax Officer Ward 4(1), Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad-500004. 2. The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax AP and TS, 1Oth Floor, C- Block, l.T. Towers, 10-2-3, A.C. Guards, 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-1 10003 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or dlrection more particularly one in the nature of Writ of tvlandamus, declaring the notice issued u/s 148A(b) d1.13.03.2O24, otder passed u/s 14BA(d) dt.30.03.2024 vide DIN - ITBA/AST/F1148N2023- 2411063693415(1), as well as the notice issued u/s 148 dt. 30.03.2024 vide DIN No. ITBA/AST/S/148_112023-2411063693531(1), by the JAO(1st respondent) instead of FAO(3'd respondent) for A.Y. 2017-18, as void, illegal, and contrary to the provisions of lncome{ax Act and contrary to the Principles of Natural Justice

6 Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. DUNDU MANMOHAN Counsel for the Rerspondents: MS. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY (sR. sc FoR TNCoME TAX) The Court made the following: ORDER List along w'ith batch. Meanwhile, there shall be interim stay of the impugned order, in the light of the order grantsd by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order in Diary No.2196 of 2026 anrJ !61sh decided on 10.04.2026 SD/.P. PRAMOD NAIK ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. lncome Tax O;Ticer Ward 4(1), Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad-500004. 2. The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax AP and TS, '10h Floor, C- Block, l.T. Towe,rs, 10-2-3, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad-500004. 3. The Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, Ministry of Finance, Room No. 4o1 , 2nd Floor, E- Ramp, Jawahar al Nehru Stadium, Delhi-1 10003 4. The Section Off cer, Writ Division Bench, Section High Court for the State of Telangana, Hydr:rabad 5. The Section Officer, Posting Section , High Court for the State of Telangana , Hyderabad 6. One CC to SRl. )UNDU IvIANIUOHAN Advocate IOPUCI 7. One CC to Ms. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY (Sr. SC FOR INCOME TAX) loPUCl 8. Two CD CoPies BM TKS ()-4v

7 HIGH COURT DATED: 0210t912026 ORDER WP.No.28079l of 2024 INTERIM STAY \\c,{i* 2 DRAFTS "t HE5T4 ot\ t 2r SFP a6 ? c ,\o,W U :C l! 4

More judgments on Section 148A

All 3,543 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →