M/s Sri Siva Rama Trust (a Private Discretionary Trust) Vs The Centralised Processing Center

'1. The Centralised Processing Center, lncome Tax Department, Bengaluru, 1st Floor, Prestige Alpha No. 4811,4812, Beratenaagrahara Begur, Hosur Road, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru - 560 100, Karnataka.

¶12

The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 4(1), Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, MasabTank, Hyderabad - 500 004, Telangana.

¶13

The Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax - 1, Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500 004, Telangana.

¶14

The Cenhal Board of Direct Taxes, Represented by its Chairman, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of lndia, Secretariat Buildings, New Delhi - 1 10 001 '

¶15

...RES'.NDENT'

¶16

Petition under Article 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 a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, declaring the intimation issued by the 1st Respondent, u/s 143(1) of the lncome Tax Act. 1961 , dated 06.02.2026, bearing DlN. CPC/2526IA5/6391^{1 5621} , ?or the Assessment Year 2024 - 25, as arbitrary, mechanical, illegal, bad in^law. violative of the principles of natural^justice apart from being violative of Articles 14, 19(1Xg) and 265 of the Constitution of lndia and the lncome Tax Act. 1961, and consequently set aside the same in the interests of^justice.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further pro:eedings, including any recovery, pursuant to the intimation issued by the 1st llespondent, u/s 1a3() of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, dated 06'02'2026, bearing DlN. CPCt2526lA5/6391 15621 for the Assessment year 2024 - 25, perssed by the 1st Respondent, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A.V.A.SIVA KARTIKEYA counsel for the Respondents: Ms. BoKARo sApNA REDDY, sENloR sc INCOME TAX

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

l)

¶22

IN THE HIGH COLIRT I.'OR THE STATE OF^TEI,ANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶23

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTTCE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH

¶24

AND

¶25

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHITJDDIN

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.6546 of 2026

¶27

Dated: 05.03.2026

¶28

Between:

¶29

IWs. Sri Siva Rama Trust^(a Private Discretionary frtrst)

¶30

...Petitioner

¶31

and

¶32

The Centralised Processing Center, lncome Tax Department, Bengaluru, l" Floor, Prestige Alpha No.48/ l,4812, Beratenaagrahara Begur, Hosur Road, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru - 560 100, Karnataka, and 3 others.

¶33

...Respondents

¶34

ORDER:

¶35

Learned counsel Sri A.V.A.Siva Kartikeya appears for the

¶36

petitioner

¶37

I

¶38

Ms. Bokaro Sapna Reddy, learned Senior Standing Counsel fbr

¶39

Income Tax Department, appears tbr the respondents

2

i,li ;l I

l, I I i !

\ \

The intimation dated 06.02.2026 issued under Secrion la3(l) of the lncomt: Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act"), for the assessmenr. year 2025-2026 has been challenged by the petitioner, though tht:re is a typographical error in the prayer portion wrongly showing the assessment year as2024-2025.

¶45

It is alleged that the respondents wrongly treated the petitioner - a Private [)iscretionary Trust, as an Association of Persons (AoP) or a Body of [rrdividuals (Bol) and taxed it at a Maximum Marginal Rate (MMR). l'he said adjustment is mechanically beyond the scope of Section 143(l) of the Act and contrary to the settled larv. It is also in violation oIprinciples of natural justice.

¶46

Frorn the pleadings and enclosed documents, it is evidenr rhat the petitioner iras preferred an appeal for similar intimation issued under Section l4:]( I ) of the Act for the assessment year 2024-2025 rreating rhe petitioner rrs AOP/BOI and taxing it at MMR before the Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeals Centre, rvhich is pending. titay petition has also been filed before the assessing officer, which is pending.

¶47

3

¶48

Learned counsel for the^{petitioner has drawnthe attention of this} Court to the Circular No.6/2012,^{dated 03.08.2012 (Annexure P.l5),on} the subject of relaxation^{from compulsory e-filing of return of income} for assessment year^2012-2013 for^{representativeassesseesof non-} residents and in the case of^{private discretionarytrusts. He submitsthat} the department is not following^{its own circulars.}

¶49

\ \

¶50

I

¶51

Learned Senior Standing Counsel^{appearing for the respondents,} however, has objected to the^{prayer on the groundof availabilityof} alternative remedy of appeal.^{She has also pointed out that the Circular} No.6/2012 does not apply to the^{relevant assessmentyear of 2025-2026} as appearin! from^paragraph 4(ii)^{thereof. It is submittedthat the} petitioner has earlier also approached the appellate^{authority.Therefore,} ii may be relegated to the appellate^{authority to raise the valid grounds,} if any, before the said authority.

¶52

Having heard the learned counsel for the^{parties and from the} materials placed on record, we are of^{the opinionthat since the} intimation under Section 143(l) of the Act^{is appealableand that the} petitioner has already preferred an appeal earlier against^{such intimation} for the assessment year 2024-2025, the^{petitioner be relegatedto pursue} the appellate remedy where it can^{raise all such groundsof law and fact.}

¶53

4

¶54

Therefo'e, <sup>/e are not inclined to entertain the writ petition. Liberty is given to the petitioner to prefer an appeal within a week. [t is also given liberty to take the ground of exclusion of the period during which it was pursuing the writ petition in the appeal to be filed.

¶55