Sri Jayanth Chandramouli Paranji, vs. The Income Tax Officer

PDF · subscribers
WP/32189/2023HC TelanganaHBHC01058996202322 November 2023Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed I.A. No. 2 of 2026, condoning the delay of 66 days in filing the amendment petition. It also allowed I.A. No. 3 of 2026, permitting the impleadment of the proposed respondent No. 3, finding it necessary given the challenge to the vires of Section 147-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Furthermore, I.A. No. 4 of 2026, seeking amendment of the writ petition's prayer, was also ordered. The court directed that the writ petition be listed for hearing before an appropriate Bench after the amendments are carried out. Crucially, the court granted an interim stay of the impugned order, referencing a similar order by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Diary No. 2196 of 2026 and batch, decided on 10.04.2026. The principle derived is that procedural applications for amendment and impleadment will be liberally considered when a substantive challenge to statutory provisions is raised, and interim relief can be granted based on existing Supreme Court precedents.

What were the facts?

This judgment concerns Writ Petition No. 32189 of 2023, filed before the High Court for the State of Telangana. The petitioner, represented by Ms. K. Prabhabati, sought to challenge the vires of Section 147-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The proceedings involved several interlocutory applications (I.A.s). I.A. No. 2 of 2026 was filed seeking condonation of a 66-day delay in filing an amendment petition, which was allowed. I.A. No. 3 of 2026 sought to implead a proposed respondent No. 3, deemed necessary due to the challenge to the statutory provision. This application was also allowed. I.A. No. 4 of 2026 sought amendment of the prayer in the writ petition, which was also ordered. The court directed that the matter be listed for hearing before an appropriate Bench after the amendments are carried out.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the interlocutory applications filed by the petitioner should be allowed, specifically concerning the condonation of delay in filing an amendment petition, the impleadment of a party, and the amendment of the writ petition's prayer? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning procedural rules and the necessity of parties/amendments). 2. Whether an interim stay should be granted on the impugned order pending further proceedings? (Question of law, concerning the grant of interim relief). Assessee's Arguments: The petitioner sought to amend the writ petition, implead a necessary party, and condone the delay in these filings, indicating a desire to proceed with the substantive challenge. The petitioner also sought an interim stay on the impugned order. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue at this stage. However, the court's decision to allow the impleadment of a respondent and the amendment of the petition suggests that the revenue's potential objections, if any, were not considered decisive at this procedural juncture.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA MAIN CASE No: WP.No.32189 of 2023 PROCEEDINGS SHEET Sl. No. Date ORDER OFFICE NOTE

16.09.2026 PSK,J & NTR,J Counsel for the petitioner: Ms.K.Prabhabati, learned counsel

representing Mr.A.V.Raghu Ram

I.A.No.1 of 2026

Ordered.

I.A.No.2 of 2026

This application seeking condonation of delay of 66 days in filing the amendment petition is taken- up.

On due consideration, this application is allowed. The delay of 66 days in filing the amendment petition stands condoned. I.A.No.3 of 2026

This application seeking to implead proposed respondent No.3 in the writ petition is taken-up.

Since challenge in the writ petition is to the vires of the provisions contained in Section 147-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, impleadment of proposed respondent as respondent No.3 is necessary. In view of the same, we are inclined to allow the implead petition.

Accordingly, I.A. stands allowed.

Transferred to i/o folder, before corrections, if any.

I.A.No.4 of 2026

This application seeking amendment of prayer in the writ petition is taken-up.

For the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of this application, this application is ordered.

Let amendment be carried out within a period of ten days. WP.No.32189 of 2023

Let the matter be listed for hearing before an appropriate Bench as per roster in the light of amendment and challenge made to the vires of provisions contained in Section 147-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

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.

________

PSK,J

________

NTR,J

Nvl

More judgments on Section 147-A

All 43 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →