Disposed

Muralikrishna Pothuguntla v. Income Tax Officer

Telangana HC19 Feb 2025WP/4835/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a Section 148 notice and assessment order for AY 2020-21 alleging absence of specified authority approval. Having earlier been directed to raise objections in assessment proceedings but not having done so, and an appellate remedy being available, the court disposed of the writ petition reserving liberty to assail the order before the appropriate authority.

What the court decided

AI extract

Muralikrishna Pothuguntla Vs Income Tax Officer — Income Tax | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[^3/t46 ]

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 4835 OF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

Muralikrishna Pothu guntla, S/o. Pothuguntla Venkatrao Ag ed. About 43 years, Occ Business, 1HNo11 0.Thimmaraopet(V).Chennaraopet(M) ,^{Warangal, Telangana}

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

lncome Tax Officer, Ward 12(1), Hyderabad Aayakar Bhawan, Opposite^Lb Stadium, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad, Telangana, 500004

¶12

2 Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax- 1, lncome Tax Towers, Masab Tank, Hyderabad

¶13

3 Union of lndia, Ministry of Finance Rep by its Secretary, 166-8, North Block, New Delhi - 110 001

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 ol the Constitution of lndia^praying thatⁱⁿ the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may^be pleased to l.lssue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly, one, in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, setting aside and^quashing the notice issued u/s^{148 dated} 31 .03.2024 and the Assessment Order'dated 30.01.2025^{passegl,"againstthe} Petitioner for the A.Y. 2020-21 as the same^was issued^{without approval of the} specified authority ll.Declare that the approval^granted by the^{Specified Authority} under Section 151 of the Act for the^{impugned notice as invalid and withoutlegal} effect. lll.set aside the^{Assessment orderdated 30.0'1.2025as the noticeissued} u/s 148 dated 31.03.2024^{itselfwas bad in law.}

¶16

..',1]

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that rn the circ;umstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court^{may be pleased to} direct the Departmerrt not to take any further steps consequent to^passingof the assessment order dated 30.O1.2025.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner :SRl P.SOMA SngXAn REDDY

¶20

counsel for the Respondents No.1&2^, lj?.?3H1",,i35il,t Tiiit

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DY.SOL.GENERAL

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

i^:

¶24

THE HON'BLE^{THE ACTINGCHIEF'JUSTICESUJOY PAUL} AND THE HON'BLE^{SMT. JUSTIQ,E RENUI(A YARA}

¶25

WRIT^{PETITION No.48s5 ()F 2025}

¶26

ORDER^{(per the Hon'btethe Acting Chief Justice):}

¶27

Heard Sri^{P.Soma Shekar Reddy' learned counsel for the} petitioner; Ms.^{BokaroSapna Reddy,Junior Standing Counselfor} Income Tax^{for respondent Nos'l and 2arrd Sri Gadi Praveen} Kumar, learned^{Deputy Solicitor General of India for respondent} No.3.

¶28

This is^{the secondvisit of the petitioner to this Court'} Earlier, the^{petitioner filed W'P'No'2723of 2025 againstnotice} dated 31.03.2024^{issuedunder Section148 of the Income Tax Act'} 1961 (for short,^{the Act)' The said Writ Petitionwas disposedof} on 31.01.2025^{by reserving liberty to the petitioner to raise all} relevant^{objectionsin the pendingassessmentproceedings'}

¶29

Now, the impugned^{assessmentorder dated 3O'01'2025 is} called in^{questionby contending that issuance of showcause} notice itself^{is bad in law. In support of this submission, a} number of^{decisions of the Supreme Court were cited' However'} on a specific^{query from the Bench' learned counsel for the} \ petitioner fairly^{submitted that neitherin reply to the show causN}

¶30

¶31

¶32

notice nor duLring the assessment proceedings, the petitioner raised objer:tion regarding jurisdiction. On the rstrength of these judgments, it is submitted that the objection of jurisdict.ion can be taken before ttLe Writ Court for the f,rrst time.

¶33

The other side submitted that the petitioner ha:; statutory remedy of a.ppt:al

¶34

In the.firsr- round itself in W.P.No.2723 of 2O25, the petition was not entertained and the petitioner was pernritted to raise all objections l:efr>re the authorities. Admittedly, the petrtioner has not raised any such objections by fi1ing reply to the show cause notice or during assessment proceedings.

¶35

The Ape.x Court in Special Director v" Mohd. Ghulam Ghousel opined that the scope of interference on show cause notice is limiteC. It was held as under:

¶36

"5... Whether the show-cause notice was founde<l on ary legal premises, is a jurisdictional issue which can be even br: urged by the rec:.pient of the notice and such issues also r;an be adjudicatecl b], the authority issuing the very nctice i.ritially, before the zrg;grieved could approach the court..."

¶37

7 . Since th.e petitioner's previous petition itself was not gnter:tained because of availability of in-house statutory remedy,

¶38

'1zooa1^{: scc ++o}

¶39

we find no reason to take a different view in this round. The Writ

¶40

Petition is, accordingly, disposed of by reserving liberty to the

¶41

petitioner to assail the impugned assessment order before the

¶42

appropriate authority. There shall be no order as to costs