Sanjeeva Mekala vs. The Income Tax Officer

PDF · subscribers
WP/9558/2025HC TelanganaHBHC01019040202524 April 2025Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, in its interim order dated August 13, 2026, granted a stay on the impugned assessment order and consequential penalty orders. This decision was made in light of an order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Diary No. 2196 of 2026 and batch, decided on April 10, 2026. The High Court directed that the matter be listed for further hearing on August 27, 2026, along with a batch of similar cases. The specific merits of the petitioner's arguments regarding the incorrect authority and violation of natural justice were not decided in this interim order. The operative direction was to stay further proceedings.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sanjeeva Mekala, filed a writ petition before the High Court for the State of Telangana challenging an assessment order dated March 13, 2024, passed by the Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, under sections 147, 144, and 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2016-17. This order was consequential to a notice issued under section 148A(d) dated March 21, 2023, and a notice under section 148 dated March 28, 2023. The petitioner also challenged consequential penalty orders passed under section 271F and section 271(1)(b) of the Act, both dated September 9, 2024. The petitioner contended that the notices and orders were issued by the incorrect authority and violated principles of natural justice. The High Court, in its interim order, granted a stay of the impugned order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order dated March 13, 2024, passed by the Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, under sections 147, 144, and 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for AY 2016-17, is void, illegal, and contrary to the provisions of the Act and principles of natural justice. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notices under section 148A(d) and section 148 were issued by the Joint Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the Facilitation Assessing Officer (FAO), which is the 3rd respondent. The petitioner also contended that the consequential assessment order and penalty orders were passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue at this stage. The matter was listed for further hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 148A,Section 148,Section 271F,Section 271(1)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

5 tN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION NO: 9558 OF 2025 Between: Sanjeeva Mekala, S/o. Sathaiah Mekala, Aged about 49 years' Occupation' Ar.in"t., # H.No.6-SO,Yelmate Nagar Colony, Balapur, Ranga Reddy'Telangana- 500005 ...PETITIONER AND 1. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 9(1) Hyderabad, lT Tower, AC Guards' Masab Tank, Hyderabad, Telangana-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.TheAssessmentUnit,lncomeTaxDepartment,NationalFaceless AssessmentCentre,Delhi,MinistryofFinance'RoomNo4Ol'2ndFloor'E- Ramp, Jawaharlat Nehru Stadium, Delhi-1 10003 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Arlicle 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 direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the Assessment order dt. 13.03.2024 passed by the 3'd respondentulsl4Tr.w.sl44ll44Bofthelncome-taxActforA.Y.2016-lTvideDlN No.ITBA/AST/st14712o23-24t1062517092(1),consequenttotheorderpassedu/s 148A(d)dt.21,o3.2o23videDlNNo.ITBA/AST/Ft148N2o22-23l1051068850(1)and thenoticeu/s148dt.28.03'2023videDlNNo.|TBA/AST/S1148_112022-23110514 56975(1), issued by the JAO('I't respondent) instead of FA0(3rd respondent) and

6 consequential penalty orders passed vide order u/s 271F oI the Act dt. 09.09.2024 and order uls 271(1)(b) of the Act dl. 09.09.2024 as void, illegal, and contrary to the provisions of lncome{ax Act and contrary to the Principles of Natural Justice. l.A. NO: 1OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cirr;umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may ce pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the Assessment Order dt. '13.0,).2024 passed by the 3rdrespondent uls 147 r.w.s 14411448 of the lncome-tax Act 1.or A.Y. 2016-1 7 vide DIN No. ITBA/AST/S/14712023-2411062517092(1)and may pasis such other orde(s) as the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interests of substantial justice, as otherwise the Petitioner would be put to irreparable loss and severe injury. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. DUNDU MANMOHAN Counsel for the Respondents: Ms. KAMASANT SUDHAKAR REDDY (Sr. SC FOR INCOME rAx) The Court made the following: ORDER List on 27.08.2026 along with batch. 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 oi 2026 and batch decided on 10.04.2026 SD/. B. REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// E ) To, C ON OFFICER 1. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 9(1) Hyderabad, lT Tower, AC Guards, lVlasab Tank, Hyderabad, Telangana-500004 2. The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax Ap itnd TS, 1Oth Floor, C- Block, l.T. Towers, 10-2-3, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad-S0C004. 3. The Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Departmen.., National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, Ministry of Finance, Room No. 401, 2nd Floor, E- Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi-1 10003. 4. The section officer writ Division Bench section High court for the state of Telangana, Hyderabad

7 5. The Section Officer, Posting Section, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. 6, One CC to SRl. DUNDU MANMOHAN, Advocate IOPUC] 7. One CC to SRI KAMASANI SUDHAKAR REDDY, SENIOR SC FOR INCOME TAX[OPUC] B. Two CD Copies BM PVL (t-

8 HIGH COURT DATED: 1310812026 DIRECTION TWO DRAFTS Lrsr oN 27.08.2026 ALONG WITH THE BATCH ORDER /t 7q. ,') ') .) ..{r \ WRIT PETITION NO. 9558 OF 2025 01 sEP ?tzi fr 7\,:1L srArp .o+ :- :t n .\\.:, * isFlAr ^t .oQ\o " k-- 10

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →