Dismissed

Mohammed Abdul Rehman v. The Income Tax Officer

Telangana HC7 Aug 2025WP/23353/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the taxpayer's writ petition objecting to the rejection of a stay application and directed the Assessing Officer to suspend recovery proceedings for Assessment Year 2015-16 pending the final disposal of the pending appeal before the Appellate Authority.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Assessing Officer not to pursue recovery proceedings under the impugned order dated 28.07.2025 till the appeal for Assessment Year 2015-16 is finally decided.

Mohammed Abdul Rehman Vs The Income Tax Officer — Income Tax | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

. [348e]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF^TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM^KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA^{CHALAPATHIRAO}

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 23353 OF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

Mohammed Abdul Rehman, S/o. Sri^{lVlohammedTaherAli, Aged. 52 years'} Rl/o.7-'1-28141N1, Leela Nagar, Begumpet,^{Ameerpet, Hyderabad- 500015'} Telangana.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The lncome Tax Offrcer, Ward^- 6^{(1), Hyderabad.}

¶12

2 The Assessment Unit, Government^{of lndia, lncomeTax Department'Ministry} of Finance, Delhi.

¶13

The Commissioner of lncome^{Tax (Appeals), lncomeTax Department,} National Faceless Appeal Centre^{(NFAC), Delhi1 10 003.}

¶14

4 Union of lndia, Rep. by its Secretary,^{t\Iinistry of Finance, 6A, 3rd Floor,} Jeevan Deep Building, Sansad^{[Vlarg, New Delhi.}

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 o'f the^{Constitution of lndiaprayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavit filed therewith, the High Court maybe} pleased to issue Writ of [/andamus or any other^{appropriateWrit or Orderor} Direction declaring the action of the^{1st Respondent in rejectingthe stay} Application of the Petitioner dated^{2410712025filed on 2510712025,withouteven} granting an opportunity of being heard^{vide orders dated2810712025f or the} Assessment Year 2015-16 under the^{lncome Tax Act,196',las arbitrary, contrary to} the Provisions of the^{lncome Tax Act, 1961and consequentlyset aside the same} as null and void and^{grant stay of collection of disputed demand as per section}

¶17

156 of the lncome Tax Act,1961 pending disposal of the appeal before the 3rd Respondent.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances stated^rn the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to^grant stay of all further Proceedings in^pursuance of the Assessnrent Order^passed by the 2nd Respondent dated 2210312024, for the Assessment Year 2015-16, under the lncome Tax Act, 1961^pending disposal of the above Writ Petition, as otherwise, the Petitioner will be^put to severe loss and hardship.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: MS. SHAIK VAHEEDA SUSHMA

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: MS. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY (sENloR sc rNcoME TAx)

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI K.L.N. RAGHAVENDRA REDDY, REPRESENTING UNION OF INDIA

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

¶25

W.P.No.23353 OF 2025

¶26

OR-DER,^(per Hon'ble Sri.lusrit'e P.Sam Koshy)

¶27

Heard Ms.Shaik Vaheeda Sushma, leamed counsel for the pctitioner, Ms. Bokaro Sapna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department appearing for respondent Nos.l to 3 and Mr. K.L.N.Raghavendra Reddy, leamed counsel representing Union of India for respondent No.4. Perused the record.

¶28

The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order daLed 28.07.2025 in directing the petitioner to pay 20o/o of the disputed demand, pending disposal of the appeal before the Appellate Authority for the Assessment Year 2015-16.

¶29

The petitioner herein had filed statutory remedy of an appeal under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 196l (for short, the 'Act') before the Appellate Authority. Atong with the Memo of Appeal, the petitioner had also preferred lntenm protection so far as the recovery proceedings are concerned under Section 220(6) of the Act. It is this application which stands

¶30

¶31

decided by the impugned order directing the petitioner for payment of the amounts stated above.

¶32

The contention of the leamed counsel lor the petirioner is that the Assessrnent Order dated 28.07.2025 itself, in the light of the Division Bench ol this Court in the case ol' Kankanala Ravindra Reddy vs. Income Tax Officerr, is not sustainable as the notice under Section 148 was issued by the jurisdictionat Assessing Officer, whereas, as per the amended provision of the Act, that ought to had been issued in the Faceless manner. He further submits that the assessment of the petitioncr themselves carried out in a similar manner for the subsequent period was already subjected to challenge before this Court for the Assessment Year 2014-15 vide W.P.No.l2348 of 2023 and the said writ petition stood allowed vide order dated 07.11.2023.1n rhe light of the aforesaid two decisions, there is all liketihood of the appeal pending before the Appellate Authority also having rhe same fate of the Assessmcnt Oider not being maintainable and being set

¶33

as ide.

¶34

' 120231¹⁵⁶ t"r."nn.com 178(TELANGANA)

I I

I I

In the tight of the subsequent amendments brought in the Act as also in the light of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & ors., v. Ashish Agarwal and others2, the Assessing Authority ought to had granted interim protection to the Assessee till finalization of the appeal which the Assessing Authority has not considered.

¶39

The contention of the leamed counsel for the petitioner so far as the 148 notice issued by the^{jurisdictional} Assessing Officer not being in dispute by the leamed Standing Counsel for the Department and also in the light of the aforesaid^judgments rendered by this Court in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy (supra l) and in the light of the^judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ashish Agarwal (supra 2), we are of the

¶40

considered opinion that the Assessing Authority in the course of deciding the petition under Section 220(6) of the Act, ought^to have taken a more pragmatic view and should had kept^the recovery proceedings in abeyance,^pending the appeal before the Appellate Authority.

¶41

'2ozzSCC^{onlineSC 543(}

¶42

¶43

For the aforesaid reasons, we dispose of thc presc'nt writ petition at this juncture directing the Assessing Otflcer not to pursue with the recovery proceedings in terms of tlte impugned order dated 28.07.2025 till the appeal lor the Assessment Year 2015-16 is finally decided.

¶44

8 Considering the fact that the appeal was filcd in rhe year 2024, we expect that the Appellate Authority shall take up the appeal and decide the same at the earliest, preferabty. within a period of six (06) weeks ftom the date of receipt ol a copy of this

¶45

order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶46

Conseqtrently, miscellaneous applications, perrding if any,

shall stand closed.

VANI SWAMY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPYII \i SECTION OFFTCER

¶51

To,

¶52

'1 . The lncome Tax Officer, Ward _ 6 (1), Hvderabad. 2- The Assessment Unit. Governmeni ,ii iniiii, rn-.o-re Ta < Department. Ministry of Finance, Delhi.

¶53

The Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals), lncome Tax Department, ,^{Nationat Facetess Appeat Centre (Ni} Ci 6;ihiiio oo:

¶54

z+. r ne secretary. Union of lndia, Ministry oi Finance. 64. 3rd Floor, Jeevan _^{DeepB^uitdin!.Sansad Nltrrs,irt"*} DLini'^{' "'""""} 5. one CC to Ms. Shaik V^aheeda Sushma Advocate tOpUCl 6 one CC to IVs. Bokaro Sapna neJoy (Se'"ioi3t'in.or" Tax) [opUC] 7 9lg p_C_lg_Sri K L.N RaghavenOr" ftJOJV,"ref,ris"nt,n,r Union of lndia[OPUC]

¶55