Disposed¶53

Ajaykumar Uppalapati v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 15(1)

Telangana HC9 Feb 2026WP/3560/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Faceless assessment; post-remand assessment to be carried out by faceless assessment authority; Sections 148A(b), 148A(d) and 148, Income Tax Act, 1961; A.Y. 2016-17; jurisdiction of assessing officer after faceless assessment scheme; CIT(A) remand order dated 19.11.2024; Kankanala Ravindra Reddy v. Income Tax Officer relied upon; writ petition disposed without costs; Telangana High Court; decided 09.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with direction that, after remand, the assessment be carried out by the faceless assessment authority once the petitioner raises the plea before the assessing authority on appearance; no order as to costs; miscellaneous applications, if any, stand closed. ¶53

Ajaykumar Uppalapati Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 15(1) — Income Tax | Telangana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶53

Issue for consideration

Whether, after the remand by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 19.11.2024, the fresh assessment for A.Y. 2016-17 ought to be undertaken by the faceless assessment authority rather than the jurisdictional assessing authority, given the coming into force of the faceless assessment scheme.

¶45

Court's answer

In view of the decision in Kankanala Ravindra Reddy v. Income Tax Officer, at this stage after remand the assessment ought to be carried out by the faceless assessment authority.

¶52

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner shall take the jurisdictional plea before the assessing authority on his appearance, whereafter the matter would be placed before the faceless assessment authority.

¶52

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin), Writ Petition No. 3560 of 2026, decided 09.02.2026: The petitioner challenged the order under section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 22.03.2023, notice under section 148 dated 25.03.2023 calling for return of income for A.Y. 2016-17, the assessment order dated 15.03.2024 and the penalty order dated 27.09.2024 passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 15(1), Hyderabad, contending that after the coming into force of the faceless assessment scheme the jurisdictional assessing authority lacked jurisdiction to undertake the assessment. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had, by order dated 19.11.2024, remanded the matter to the assessing officer for fresh assessment; the writ petition was filed after that remand. Relying on Kankanala Ravindra Reddy v. Income Tax Officer, the Court held that at this stage after remand the assessment ought to be carried out by the faceless assessment authority, and directed that the petitioner take the plea before the assessing authority on his appearance, whereafter the matter would be placed before the faceless assessment authority. Writ petition disposed of; no order as to costs; miscellaneous applications closed.

¶1

[³⁴⁸⁸¹

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE^{STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF^FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF^{JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMARSINGH} AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{G.M. MOHIUDDIN}

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 3560^{OF 2026}

¶8

Between:

¶9

Aiavkumar Uooalaoati. S/o Balaraiu Uppalapati,^{Aged about 44 years,Occ'} Bijiiness, residing At¹⁶⁵ Parvathi^{Nagar Opp Hig A 54} ,^{Besides Of[i.c9-r.s.-C.o-lgly} AS-naonigar ECIL Post Secunderabat^{500062,Telangana,lndiaAAVPU3406H}

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 lncome Tax Officer, Ward^{15(1),Hyderabad, lncome Tax Tower, AC Guards,} Masab Tank, Hyderabad, Telangana,⁵⁰⁰⁰⁰⁴

¶13

2 Princioal Commissioner of lncome^{Tax-lV, Hyderabad lncome Tax Tower, Ac} Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad,^{Telangana, 500004}

¶14

The National Faceless^{Assessmentcentre lncome Tax,Department Ministry} of Finance, Govt. of lndia,^{New Delhi}

¶15

Union Of lndia Ministry Of^{FinanceRep By lts Secretary,'166-8 North Block,} New Delhi 1 10 001^.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 ol^{the constitutionof lndiapraying that in the} circumstances stated in^{the affidavitfiled therewith,the High court maybe} pleased to lssue a writ, order or Direction^{moreparticularly, one, in the natureof} a writ of Mandamus, declaring^{the actionof the Respondent No.1 in passingan} order u/s. 14sA(d) dated^{22.03.2023,issuing Noticeu/s. 148 dated 25.03.2023} calling for return of income^{for .A.Y. 2016-17,assessment orderdated15.03.2024} and penalty order dated 27.o9.2024and^{any subsequent proceedingsas illegal,} arbitrary, bad in law and^{violativeof Articles 't4, 19 and 265 of the constitutionof} lndia. and Set aside the^{order passed u/s. 14BA(d)daled 22.03.2023,Notice}

¶18

issued u/s. 1z'8 dated 25.03.2023 calling for return of income for A.Y. 2016-17, assessment order dated 15.03.2024, and penalty order dated 27.09.2024andany consequent proceedings as lacking in^{jurisdiction.}

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶20

Petition underSection 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filt..d in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant an interim stay on the operation of the Order passed u/s. 148A(d) dated 22.03.2023, Nctice issued u/s. 148 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, by Respondent No.1 dated 25.03.2023 calling for the return of income of the Petitioner for A.Y. 2016-17, assessment order dated 15.03.2024, and penalty order dated 27.09.2024 and further stay all consequential proceedings initiated or contemplated lly the Respondents.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P.JINAL REPRESENTING SRI P. SOMA SHEKAR REDDY

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents No 1& 2z SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, SPECIAL GOVERNM ENT PLEADER

¶23

Gounsel for the Respondents 3&4 : SRI K.SUDHAKAR REDDY (sENroR sc FoR rNcoME TAX DEPT)

¶24

The Court macle the following: ORDER

¶25

I I

¶26

¶27

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF'TELAIIGANA AT HYD

¶28

THE HON^,BLE THE CHIEF JUSTI CE SRT APARESH K R SINGH

¶29

AND

¶30

THE HON'B LE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN

¶31

WRIT PETITI ON No.3560 of 2026

¶32

Dated: 09.02.2026

¶33

Between:

¶34

Ajaykurnar Uppalapati

¶35

...Petitioner

¶36

and

¶37

lncome Tax Officer, Ward l5(1), Hyderabad, lncome Tax Tower, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 004 and 3 others.

¶38

...Respondents

¶39

ORDER:

¶40

Heard Mr. P.Jinal, learned counsel representing Mr. P.Sorna Shekar

¶41

Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. K.sudhakar

¶42

Reddy, learned senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department,

¶43

appearing for the respondents.

¶44

¶45

The notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2016-2017 dated 28.02.2023 is being assailed now or"r the ground that the^{jurisdictional} assessing authority did not have the jurisdiction to undertake the assessrnent after coming into force of the faceless assessrrent scheme

¶46

The petitioner has approached the appellate authority i.e., the Cornrnissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), whereby vide order dated 19.11 .2024 the rnatter was remanded to the assessing off-rcer to rnake a fi'esh asses;rnent in the light of the documentary evidences as nray be placed befc,re him and after making such inquiries as may be considered expedient t,y the assessing officer. The present writ petition is fiIed after the remand to the assessing officer taking the ground ofjurisdiction.

¶47

Leanred Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Deparlment submits thrrt the plea of jurisdiction was not raised before the appellate authority

¶48

Leanred counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has approached this court as the ruling of this Court on the subject has to be followed e'ren after remand by the assessing authority. He prays that an appropriate directiqn may be issued upon the assessing authority to place

¶49

I t

¶50

¶51

the matter before the faceless assessment authority for undertaking fresh assessment.

¶52

We are of the considered view that in the light of the decision rendered in Kankanala Ravindra Reddy v. [ncome Tax Officerr, at this stage after remand, the assessment ought to be carried out by the faceless assessment authority. This shall meet the ratio rendered in Kankanala Ravindra Reddy (supra). The petitioner shall take such a plea before the assessing authority on his appearance, whereafter the matter would be placed before the faceless assessment authority

¶53