Mrs. Sri Lakshmi Sadam vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 4

PDF · subscribers
WP/34209/2024HC TelanganaHBHC01065254202421 February 2025Bench: SUJOY PAUL,RENUKA YARA5 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition as withdrawn. The petitioner's counsel sought to withdraw the petition with liberty to amend her appeal memo, raise additional grounds, and file a fresh stay application. The respondents had no objection to this request. Consequently, the Court granted the liberty prayed for and dismissed the Writ Petition as withdrawn. The Court also directed that the stay application to be filed by the petitioner should be considered by the learned authority in accordance with law, without being mechanically influenced by its previous order. No costs were awarded. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, were also closed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mrs. Sri Lakshmi Sadam, filed a Writ Petition before the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. The petition challenged an order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 4, Hyderabad, directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- per month pending the disposal of her appeal before the 1st Appellate Authority (4th Respondent). This direction was in relation to Assessment Year 2018-19. The petitioner sought a Writ of Mandamus or other appropriate direction to declare the order as arbitrary, illegal, and violative of natural justice and constitutional provisions, and to set it aside. She also sought a stay of recovery pending the disposal of her appeal before the 1st Appellate Authority and the Writ Petition. An interlocutory application was also filed seeking a stay of all proceedings, including recovery, pursuant to the impugned order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- per month pending appeal is arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, bereft of reasons, and violative of principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 265 of the Constitution of India, and Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the order was arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, bereft of any reasons, and violative of principles of natural justice, Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 265 of the Constitution of India, and Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. She sought to set aside the order and stay recovery. Revenue's Contention: The revenue did not object to the withdrawal of the petition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Between: Mrs. Sri Lakshmi Sadam, D/o. Mr. S. Karan Raj, Aged 44 yea$, Occ. House Wife, F/o. 1-1-477 to 485,nlalani lcon, Flat 310, New Bakaiam, Gandhinagar, Secunderabad - 500 080, Telangana. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax - 4, Hyderabad, l.T.Towers, 10-2- 3, AC Guards, Hyderabad - 500 004, Telangana. 2. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward - 9(1), Hyderabad, 3-16-76, Nehru Nagar, Ramanthapur. Hyderabad - 500 013, Telangana. 3. Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department, National e-Assessment Center, New Delhi. Room No. 4O1 ,2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, New Delhi - 110 003. [ 3446 J HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENry FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT PETITION NO: 34209 OF 2024 4. The Joint Commissioner (Appeals) / the Commissioner of lncome Tax (4ppeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Through the Principat Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax (NaFAC), Delhi, North Block, New Delhi - 110001. 5. The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, Hyderabad, Room No. 922,9th Floor, B Block, l.T.Towers. 10-2- 3. AC Guards, Hyderabad - 500 004, Telangana. ...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 issue a Writ of fVlandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, declaring the order passed by the 1"t Respondent vide DIN and Letter No. ITBA/RCV/F11712024-2511066174567(1). in directing the Petitioner to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- per month, pending disposal of the appeal of the Petitioner before the i I ,xta.f

1st Appellate Authority, i.e., the 4th Respondent herein, for the Assessment Year 2018 - 1 9, as arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, bereft of any reasons, violative of principles of.natural justice, apart from being violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 265 0f the constitution of India and sec 148A of the lncome Tax Act, 1 961 and consequenfly set-aside the saine and grant stay of recovery, pending disposal of the Petitioners appeal before the 1st Appellate Authority, in the interests of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 stay all further proceedings, including any recovery, pursuant to the order passed by the 1st Respondent vide DIN and Letter No.. ITBNRCV|Fl1712024- 25t1O66174567(1), in directing the Petitioner to pay Rs. 1,00,0001 per month, pending disposal of the appeal of the Petitioner before the 1st Appellate Authority, i.e., the 4th Respondent herein, for the Assessment Year 2018 - 19, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A. V. A. SIVA KARTIKEYA Gounsel for the Respondents: MS. B. SAPNA REDDY, LEARNED SENIOR SC FREPRESENTS SRI J V PRASAD (Sr. SC FOR INCOME TAx) The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT PETITION No.342O9 of 2024 ORDER (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujog paut): Sri A.V.A. Siva Kartikeya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. B. Sapna Reddy, learned Junior Standing Counsel represents Sri J.V. Prasad, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department, for the respondents. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to withdraw this petition with liberty to the petitioner to amend her appea-l memo/raise additional grounds and file a fresh stay application. 3. The other side has no objection. 4. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty prayed for. The learned authority shall consider the stay application to be hled by the petitioner in accordance with law alresh without getting mechanically influenced by its previous order. No costs.

2 Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. 3. Two CD CoPies Y4- /TTRUE COPY// SD/.P. PADM ANABHA REDDY ASSIST NT REGISTRAR CTION OFFICER To, 1. OneCCto Sri A V A SivaKartikeya' AdvocateIOPUC] 2. One CC to Sri J V Prasad (Sr' SC for lncome Tax) iOPUCI TJ BS

HIGH COURT DATED:21 10212025 ORDER 2t, EB Zffi URGENT -- F o s,-.ql- ti ;1. I i t WP.No.34209 of 2024 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS WITHDRAWN WITHOUT COSTS 6*d'a rl r.i Y+'-- {^6

More judgments on Section 148A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →