Dismissed

D v. S Subba Raju and 3 Others, v the Union of India, New Delhi, and 4 Others

Telangana HC8 Sept 2025WP/28677/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review petitions against a Division Bench order allowing writ petitions challenging Section 143(1) intimation issued despite pending Section 143(3) scrutiny assessment. The court held that judgments not cited or produced at the original hearing cannot constitute an error apparent on the record for review and rejected the review petitions.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sl. No.	Date	ORDER	OFFICE NOTE
28.	17.03.2026	PSK,J & NNR,J Counsel for the review petitioners : Mr.N. Praveen Reddy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department Counsel for the respondents : Mr.P.Balaji Varma I.A.No.1 of 2025 IN W.P.No.28677 of 2016 AND I.A.No.1 of 2025 IN W.P.No.28689 of 2016	Transferred to i/o folder, before corrections, if any.
		Since the factual matrix in both the review petitions is identical, they are being taken up for analogous hearing and are disposed of by this common order. I.A.No.1 of 2025 is a review petition filed in W.P.No.28677 of 2016 and likewise, I.A.No.1 of 2025 is a review petition filed in W.P.No.28689 of 2016, both of which stood decided by the Division Bench of this Court on 08.09.2025. The writ petitioners invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India had challenged the intimation under Section
		143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short,

Sl.
No.

Date

ORDER

OFFICE
NOTE

28.

17.03.2026

PSK,J & NNR,J
Counsel for the review petitioners : Mr.N. Praveen Reddy, learned
Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department
Counsel for the respondents : Mr.P.Balaji Varma
I.A.No.1 of 2025 IN W.P.No.28677 of 2016
AND
I.A.No.1 of 2025 IN W.P.No.28689 of 2016

Transferred to
i/o folder,
before
corrections, if
any.

Since the factual matrix in both the review
petitions is identical, they are being taken up for
analogous hearing and are disposed of by this
common order.
I.A.No.1 of 2025 is a review petition filed in
W.P.No.28677 of 2016 and likewise, I.A.No.1 of
2025 is a review petition filed in W.P.No.28689 of
2016, both of which stood decided by the Division
Bench of this Court on 08.09.2025.
The
writ
petitioners
invoking
the writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India had challenged the intimation under Section

143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short,

‘the Act’) dated 27.09.20	09, which was issued	on
14.10.2009 and served up	on the writ petitioner	s on
16.10.2009. The challen	ge primarily was on	the
ground of the said intima	tion could not have	been
issued in the light of th	e commencement of	the
scrutiny assessment pro	ceedings under Sec	tion
143(3) of the Act and the	intimation by issuanc	e of
notice under Section	143(2) having alr	eady
commenced. In the cou	rse of allowing the	writ
petitions, we have based	upon a judgment of	the
Hon’ble Supreme Court	in the case ofCIT	vs.
GUJARAT ELECTRICI that once the notice unde	TY BOARD¹ which r 143(2) and proceed	held ings
under Section 143(3) of	the Act having alr	eady
issued, the subsequent no	tice under Section 14	3(1)
would not had been issue	d, as has been held by	the
Hon’ble Supreme Court	in the case of*Guj*	*arat*
*Electricity Board*(supra).	It is this judgment d	ated
08.09.2025 on which the	review petitions now	have
been filed. The solitary groun	d on which the re	view
petition has been conteste	d by the learned Stan	ding
Counsel for the Income	Tax Department was	the
view taken by this Bench	while disposing of the	two

‘the Act’) dated 27.09.20

09, which was issued

14.10.2009 and served up

on the writ petitioner

s on

16.10.2009. The challen

ge primarily was on

the

ground of the said intima

tion could not have

been

issued in the light of th

e commencement of

the

scrutiny assessment pro

ceedings under Sec

tion

143(3) of the Act and the

intimation by issuanc

e of

notice
under
Section

143(2)
having
alr

eady

commenced. In the cou

rse of allowing the

writ

petitions, we have based

upon a judgment of

the

Hon’ble Supreme Court

in the case ofCIT

vs.

GUJARAT ELECTRICI
that once the notice unde

TY BOARD¹ which
r 143(2) and proceed

held
ings

under Section 143(3) of

the Act having alr

eady

issued, the subsequent no

tice under Section 14

3(1)

would not had been issue

d, as has been held by

the

Hon’ble Supreme Court

in the case of**Guj**

arat

Electricity Board(supra).

It is this judgment d

ated

08.09.2025 on which the

review petitions now

have

been filed.
The solitary groun

d on which the re

view

petition has been conteste

d by the learned Stan

ding

Counsel for the Income

Tax Department was

the

view taken by this Bench

while disposing of the

two

writ petitions was contrary to the view of the Hon	’ble
Supreme Court, laid down in Special Leave	to
Appeal (Crl.) No(s).13578 of 2024 dated 15.10.2 in the case ofNEETA SINGH & ORS. vs. T	024 HE
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORSand	also
the judgment rendered by the same Bench	of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case	of
PRADHYA PRANJAL KULKARNI vs. STA OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER² contended that the Division Bench of this Court wrongly invoked the writ jurisdiction while quash the proceedings initiated by the criminal court	TE and has ing i.e.,
Special Judge for Economic offences, Nampa	lly,
Hyderabad in C.C.No.121 of 2011 and C.C.No. of 2011. During the course of hearing, there does	125 not
seem to be any dispute on the part of the cou	nsel
representing the Income Tax Department	in
contending that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supr	eme
Court in the case of *Neeta Singh* *and ors (*su	pra)
was not cited before this Bench at the time of hea in the original writ petitions i.e., W.P.Nos.28677 28689 of 2016 and also the fact that the judgmen	ring and t in
the case of*Pradhya Pranjal Kulkarni*(supra) it	self

writ petitions was contrary to the view of the Hon

’ble

Supreme Court, laid down in Special Leave

Appeal (Crl.) No(s).13578 of 2024 dated 15.10.2
in the case ofNEETA SINGH & ORS. vs. T

024
HE

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORSand

also

the judgment rendered by the same Bench

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

PRADHYA PRANJAL KULKARNI vs. STA
OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER²
contended that the Division Bench of this Court
wrongly invoked the writ jurisdiction while quash
the proceedings initiated by the criminal court

TE
and
has
ing
i.e.,

Special Judge for Economic offences, Nampa

lly,

Hyderabad in C.C.No.121 of 2011 and C.C.No.
of 2011.
During the course of hearing, there does

125
not

seem to be any dispute on the part of the cou

nsel

representing
the
Income
Tax
Department

contending that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supr

eme

Court in the case of Neeta Singh and ors (su

pra)

was not cited before this Bench at the time of hea
in the original writ petitions i.e., W.P.Nos.28677
28689 of 2016 and also the fact that the judgmen

ring
and
t in

the case of**Pradhya Pranjal Kulkarni**(supra) it

self

was also judgment which was not shown to the
Bench on the date of hearing. On this very ground
itself, we are of the considered opinion that the case
of the applicants would not fall within the purview of
Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC so far as the review of an
order is concerned. For seeking review of an order,
the party concerned would have to show the error apparent on the face of the record which must have
correct and which is glaringly visible to the naked
eyes. It is by now well settled proposition of law by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court time and again that on
erroneous consideration of the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court or non-consideration of the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court would not fall within the ambit of an error apparent on the face of record so as to attract Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.
In the instant case, admittedly both these judgments,
which the petitioners now intend to rely, were
not relied upon or produced before the Court in
the course of their arguments and, therefore,
non-consideration of these judgments all the more
will not be a ground for attracting the review
jurisdiction of this Bench. We are of the considered
opinion that no ground for review has been made out.
Accordingly, the review petitions i.e., I.A.No.1

was also judgment which was not shown to the

Bench on the date of hearing. On this very ground

itself, we are of the considered opinion that the case

of the applicants would not fall within the purview of

Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC so far as the review of an

order is concerned. For seeking review of an order,

the party concerned would have to show the error
apparent on the face of the record which must have

correct and which is glaringly visible to the naked

eyes. It is by now well settled proposition of law by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court time and again that on

erroneous consideration of the judgment of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court or non-consideration of the

judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court would not
fall within the ambit of an error apparent on the face
of record so as to attract Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.

In the instant case, admittedly both these judgments,

which the petitioners now intend to rely, were

not relied upon or produced before the Court in

the course of their arguments and, therefore,

non-consideration of these judgments all the more

will not be a ground for attracting the review

jurisdiction of this Bench. We are of the considered

opinion that no ground for review has been made out.

Accordingly, the review petitions i.e., I.A.No.1

of 2025 in W.P.No.28677 of 2016 and I.A.No.1 of
2025 in W.P.No.28689 of 2016 both being devoid of
merits, deserves to be and are, accordingly, rejected.
________ PSK,J
________ NNR,J Lrkm

of 2025 in W.P.No.28677 of 2016 and I.A.No.1 of

2025 in W.P.No.28689 of 2016 both being devoid of

merits, deserves to be and are, accordingly, rejected.

________
PSK,J

________
NNR,J
Lrkm

D v. S Subba Raju and 3 Others, v the Union of India, New Delhi, and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

D v. S Subba Raju and 3 Others, v the Union of India, New Delhi, and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.B.Renuka Vs Joint Cit

Sri Mangaram Choudary [Huf] Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

The Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs Vs M/S. Agarwal Industries Private Limited,Hyd

M.A. Shareef, S/o. Rahamathulla Shareef Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Sol Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs the State of Ap

Andhra Bank Financial Services Ltd. Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-I