Progressive Constructions Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

PDF · subscribers
WP/6128/2026HC TelanganaHBHC01012321202606 May 2026Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA5 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted a memo dated April 30, 2026, seeking permission to withdraw the writ petition. As prayed for by the petitioner, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. No order was made as to costs. Any pending miscellaneous applications were also ordered to stand closed. The judgment does not delve into the merits of the issues raised by the petitioner regarding the validity or jurisdiction of the Section 148 notice. The decision is solely based on the petitioner's request to withdraw the petition.

What were the facts?

Progressive Constructions Limited (the petitioner) filed a writ petition before the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. The petition challenged a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Respondent No. 1) on March 28, 2025, calling for the petitioner's return of income for Assessment Year 2020-21. The petitioner sought to declare this notice and any subsequent proceedings as illegal, arbitrary, bad in law, and violative of constitutional articles, and to set aside the notice for lacking jurisdiction. An interim stay on the operation of the notice and consequential proceedings was also sought. The respondents included the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, the National Faceless Assessment Centre, and the Union of India.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated March 28, 2025, calling for the return of income for AY 2020-21, and any subsequent proceedings, are illegal, arbitrary, bad in law, and violative of Articles 14, 19, and 265 of the Constitution of India. (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and Articles 14, 19, and 265 of the Constitution of India). 2. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated March 28, 2025, for AY 2020-21, and any consequent proceedings, lack jurisdiction. (Question of law, concerning Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notice issued under Section 148 and subsequent proceedings were illegal, arbitrary, bad in law, violative of constitutional provisions, and lacked jurisdiction. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the respondents.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

134471 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRlT PETITION NO:6128 OF 2026 Between: Progressive Constructions Limited, Having its Registered Office at 7th Floor Raghava North Block, Chirag All Lane, Abids, Hyderabad 500001, Telangana, lndia AABCP2274M Represented by its Authorised Signatory, Praveen Pathuri. ...PETITIONER AND '1. Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle 5('l), Hyderabad, lT Tower, Ac Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, 500004. 2. Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax V, Hyderabad, lT Tower, Ac Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad,Andhra Pradesh, 500004. 3. The National Faceless Assessment Centre, lncome Tax Department, Ministry of Finance, Govt. of lndia, New Delhi. 4. Union Of lndia Ministry Of Finance Rep By lts Secretary, 166-8 North Block, New Delhi 1 10 001 . .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 ot the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to (i) lssue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly, one, in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent No- 1 in issuing Notice u/s. 148 dated 2810312025 calling for return of income for A.Y' 2020-21and any subsequent proceedings as illegal, arbitrary, bad in law and violative of Articles 14,19 and 265 of the constitution of lndia and (ii) set aside the Notice issued u/s. 148 dated

P:" ZAlO3t2O25 calling for return of income for A.Y. 2020-21 , and any consequent proceedings as lacking in jurisdiction. I.A.No: 10F 2026 Petition Under Section '151 CPC praying that in the cir<;umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant an interim stay on the operation of the Notice issued u/s. 148 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, by Respondent No.'l dated 28.03.2025 calling for the relurn of income of the petitioner for A.Y 2020-21 , and further stay all consequential proceedings initiated or contemplated by the Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI P.SOMA SHEKAR REDOY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : SRI K.SUDHAKAR REDDY (SR SC FOR INCOME TAX) Gounsel for the Respondent No.4 : SRI N.BHUJANGA RAO, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAI) TTIE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI.IUS'IICE NARSING RAO NANDTKONDA \Y.P.NO .6128 ()r 2026 06.05.2026 Between: Progressive Constructive Lin-rited " 'Petitioner AND Assistant Commissioner of Incorne Tax., Circle 15. HYderahad Il Tower'- Ac Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad and 3 others "'Respondents 9p.]98, @er Hon'hle Sri Jttsiite !''Sant Kasltv-) Today, when the matter is taken r-rp for hearing, the leamed counsel for the petitioner submits that she has filed a memo' dated 30.04.2026, seeking permission to u iti'rdraw the instant writ petition. 2. As prayed for, this r.r'rit petition is clisrnissed as withdrawn' No order as to costs' J

- 2 Miscellaneous closed. applicai;.ons pending, if any, shall stand SD/. M. NAGAMANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// G To SA SECTION OFFICER 1. One CC to SRI P.SOMA SHEKAR REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to SRI K.SUDHAKAR REDDY (Sr SC FOR lNrlOME TAX) Advocate loPUCl 3. bne CC to SRI N.BHUJANGA RAO, DEPUry SOLICITOR GENERAL OF lNDlA, Advocate (OPUC) 4. Two CD Copies a G

HIGH COURT DATED: 0610512026 ORDER WP.No.6128 of 2026 it: 5IAIt ) ? 0 ,j lll ?[2$ '1-. I xt, { ]r:sr.rrcua} DISMISSING THE W.P AS WITHDRAWN WITHOUT COSTS. gu II DI

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →