Mr. Bhasker Reddy Kondapally vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

PDF · subscribers
WP/6815/2025HC TelanganaHBHC01013253202507 March 2025Bench: SUJOY PAUL,RENUKA YARA7 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, in a common order, set aside the impugned orders dated January 7, 2025. The Court directed the appellate authority to decide the appeals preferred by the petitioners expeditiously on their own merits. Crucially, the Court stated that the appellate authority shall not compel the petitioners to deposit the amounts demanded, considering the nature of the cases. This decision was arrived at based on a consensus between the parties, who submitted that in similar cases involving faceless assessment procedures, the Court had granted stays. The Court disposed of the writ petitions accordingly, with no costs.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, Mr. Bhasker Reddy Kondapally and the legal heir of Late Mr. Ganodhar Mandava, filed writ petitions before the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. The petitions challenged orders dated January 7, 2025, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (1st Respondent). These orders, related to Assessment Year 2016-17, had directed the petitioners to deposit 20% of the disputed demand pending their appeals before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) / Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (4th Respondent). The petitioners sought to declare these orders arbitrary, illegal, barred by limitation, bad in law, void-ab-initio, and violative of principles of natural justice and constitutional provisions. They also sought a stay on recovery pending the disposal of their appeals.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the orders dated January 7, 2025, directing the deposit of 20% of the disputed demand pending appeal, are arbitrary, illegal, barred by limitation, bad in law, void-ab-initio, 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? (Question of law and fact) Assessee's Contention: The petitioners argued that the impugned orders were illegal, arbitrary, and violative of constitutional and statutory provisions. They sought a stay on recovery pending the disposal of their appeals. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific arguments from the revenue. However, the impugned orders themselves indicate a demand for 20% of the disputed amount.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[ 3446 ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT PETITION Nos.68 15 & 6869 0F 2025 WRIT PETITION NO: 6815 OF 2025 Between: AND 1 2 Mr. Bhasker Reddy Kondapally, S/o. Mr. Narasimha Reddy, aoed 64 vears. ucc.. Employee, ^H.No-6-3-123818.121 , Creamline Diary Products t_iiniteO, Rajbhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad - 500 082, Telingana. ...PETITIONER The Deputy Commissio.ner of lncorne Tax, Circle 1(1 ), Hyderabad, lncome Iax Towers, A C Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad _500 OO+, Telangana. Assessment Unit, lncome T-qx Department, National e Assessment Center New Delhi Room No. 401 2nd Flobr E Ramp Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium New Delhi The P.rincipal Commissioner of lncome Tax - 1, Income Tax Towers, A C Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500 004, T6langana. The Joint Commissioner (Appeals) / the Commissioner of lncome Tax Sppgqts), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Through the principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax (NaFAC), Delhi, NortfiBlock, New'Delhi _ 1 10 001 The Cenkal Board of Direct Taxes, Represented by its Chairman, Department of ReIenue, .tt4'l,il!ry of Finance, Govei.nment of tntia, SeCretiiiji Auitdi,;g;, - New Delhi - 110 001 . ...RESPONDENTS 3 4 5 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 a .writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or Direction, declaring the order passed by the 1"t Respondent, vide DIN and Letter No.. lrBA/coMlFl1712024-2511071966s63(1), dated 07.01 .2o2s, in rejecting the

stay application fileJ by the Petitioner, pending disposal of the appeal of the Petitioner before the, 1't Appellate Authority, i.e., the 4th liespondent herein, for the Assessment Year 2016 - 17 , as arbitrary, illegal, barrerd by linitation, bad in law,l void-ab-iniiio, violative of the principles of natural jut;tice, apart from being violative of Articles 1+, 19(1Xg) and 265 of the Constitution of lndia and Sec 14BA of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, and consequently set-aside the same and grant stay of recovery, pendinll disposal of the Petitioner's appeal bt>fore the 1st Appellate Authority, in the interests of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the c:ircumsl:ances stated in the affidavit filed in r;upport of the petition, the High Court rnay be pleased to stay all further proceedings, including any recovery, pursuant to the crder passed by the 1st Respond,:nt, vide DIN and Letter No.. ITBA/COIV/F/1 712024' 251107'1966563(1 ) dated 07.01 .2025, in rejecting the sta'/ application filed by the Petitioner, pending clisposal of the appeal of the Petitioner trefore the l st Appellate Authority, i.e., the z.th Respondent herein, for the Assess'ment Year 2016 - 17 ' pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SRINARAYANA TOSHNIWAL, REPRESENTS SRI A. V. A. SIVA KARTIKEYA Counsel for the Respondents: MS. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY (Jr. SC FOR TNCOME TAx)

WRIT PETITION NO: 6E6g oF 2025 Between: Late Mr. Ganoadhar Mandava, Re.presented by his wife and legal heir, Mrs. Ramakumari -Mandawa, D/o. mi. V j;l;dai'hi n;;, id;-of'y.;l[, Occ. Business, 6-3-123818t21, Creamtine Oiiri CioAucts, nij ehrran ho;i, Somajiguda, Hyderabad - 500'OS2 fetangani. ' ' ...PETITIONER AND 1. Il9 p"pytY Cpmmissio.ner of I ncome Tax, Circte 1 ( 1 ), Hyderabad, tncome tax towers, A c cuards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad _ 500 004, Telingana. 2 fl:,"g:.11gnt Unit, IncomeTqx pgpartnle1t, National e-Assessment Center, New Uetht, Room No.. 4O1 ,2nd Floor, E_Ramp, Jawaharlat Nehru Stadium, New Delhi - 110 003. 3. The Principal Cormissioner of lncome Tax - .l , lncome Tax Towers, A C Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500 004, fetangana. 4. The Joint Commissioner, (Appeals) / the Commissioner of lncome Tax Sqpgat.), Nationat facelds! Appe'at Centre, Oetm,lnrouqh ifre printioat unrer commissioner of lncome Tax (NaFAC), Delhi. NorttiBloct, ttew'oetrri - 110 001 5. The central Board of Direct raxes, Represented by its chairman, DeDartment of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Govei-nment ot tntrii, Secreiari;i B;ii;i;s;, New Dethi - 110 00i .:.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 a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or Direction, declaring the order passed by the 1"t Respondent, vide DIN and Letter No.. lrBA/coMlFl17t2o24-2st107i96645s(1), dated oz.o1 .202s in directing the Petitioner to pay 20 percent of the disputed demand, pending disposar of the appeal of the Petitioner before the 1st Appellate Authority, i.e., the 4th Respondent herein, for the Assessment year 2016 - 17, as arbitrary, iilegar, barred by limitation, bad in law, void-ab-initio, violative of the principles of natural justice, apart from being violative of Articles 1 a, 19(i Xg) and 265 of the constitution of lndia and sec 148A of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, and consequenfly set-aside the same and grant stay of, recovery, pending disposal of the petitioner's appeal before the 1st Appellate Authority, in the interests of justice.

tA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition unde. Section 151 CPC praying that in the r;ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Courl rnay be pleased to stay all further proceedings, including any recovery, pursuant lo the order passed by the 1st Respondent, vide DIN and Letter No.. ITBA/COIM/F/1712024- 2511071966458(1). jated 07.01 .2025 in directing the Petiti:ner to pay 20% of the disputed demand, pending disposal of the appeal of tho Petitioner before the 'l st Appellate Authority, i.e., the 4th Respondent herein, for the A,.;sessment Year 2016 - 17,, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel forthe Petitioner(: SRI SRINARAYAN TOSHNIWAL, REPRESENTS SRI. AVA SIVA KARTIKEYA Counsel forthe Respondents: MS. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY (Jr. SC FOR INCOME TAx) The Court made ther following: COMMON ORDER

{ (: r'tr THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT PETTTION Nos.6815 & 6a69 of2O25 COMMON ORI)ER (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chtef Justice Sujog paul): Sri Srinarayan Toshniwal, learned counsel represents Sri A.V.A.Siva Kartikeya, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. B. Sapna Reddy, learned Junior Stalding Counsel for Income Tax Department, for the respondents. 2. Regard being had to the similitude of the questions involved, these matters were heard analogously and decided by way of this common order. 3. By impugned orders both dated OT.Ol.2025, the interim orders were granted in favour of the petitioners subject to depositing 2O%o of the disputed a-rnount. 4. Learned counsel for the parties fairly submitted that in cases relating to faceless assessment procedure, this Court in batch of writ petitions has granted stay and these writ petitions may be disposed of in terms of common order passed by this Court in W.P.Nos. 1974 and 1975 of 2025 d,ated,2Z.Ol.2O2S. I I t I

1 l 2 5 In vierir of consensus arrived at, the impugned orders Accord ingly, these Writ Petitions are dispose,d of. No InterJocutory applications, if any pendrng, shall a_1so both dated C'7.O1.2025 are set aside. L,earned appellate authority shal decide the appeals preferred b.7 the petitioners expeditiously cn its own merits, but shall not c,tmpel the petitioners to deposit the amounts demanded , considering the nature of the c ases. 6 costs. stand closed . //TRUE COPYII SEU.T. JAYASREE TANT REGISTRAR . ASSIS i I To, .i lecrtoru oFFtcER 1. The Deputy Commissioner of lncorne Tax, Circle 1(1 ), Hyderabad, Income Tax Towers, l\ C Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad'- 50O004, 1;6;q;;;. 2. Assessment Ljnit, rncome Tax Departmeni, Nationar e nssessme.t iJnii. New Delhi Rocm No. 401 2nd Fro6r E Ramp Jawaharr,r Ner,ri, si"oi* r.rl* Delhi 3. The P_rincipal Commissioner of lncome Tax _ 1, lncomt-, Tax Trtwers, A C Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500 004, Telangana. 4. The Joint Conrmissioner (Appeals) / the Commissioner:of lncome Tax $gn-eals), Na:ional Facetess App6al Centre, Dethi, ih.ouqh tfre Fiincioaf chief commissioner of rncome'Tax (NaFAC), oetri, Nortr"et;:r,, u"*Grr,i - 110 001 5. The chairman, The _centrar Board of Direct raxes, Departmerrt of Revenue, M!1is-try of Finance, Government of rndia, secretariat eiuitciinEs,,-r.rew riJir,ir 110001. 6. One CC to Sri A. V. A. Siva Kartikeya, Advocate [OptJC] 7. One CC to Ms. Bokaro Sapna Reddi (Jr. SC for ln'corneiax) [OpUC] 8. Two CD Copies TJ LS.',k& ,.r \ a

HIGH COURT DATED:0710312025 COMMON ORDER 1t\E- Sr'4i lli [P?, 2t25 . !qr r: r, ).\. -l\ ( I Joo ,! \.,-, . ,.' / i O:'.'.Tr:' a---r-a--.' WRIT PETITION NO.6815 AND 6869 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS ,j,2( I j I I I t I I I t i :.

More judgments on Section 148A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →