Bhugan v. Rrr 3Oo'z [(2020) ][4Zt Rrr ][46 ][(Sc

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF APRILTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYANANDTHE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION NO: 21766 OF 2022 Between: Lakshmi Techno Solutions Pvt., Ltd., [1-10-127, ][Street ][No.9, ][Ashok ][Nagar,]Hyderabad 5OO O2O TS, [(lndia), ]Rep. by [its Managing Director, ] ^.r,r"tu.Tr.r,r,o*r* AND 1. Dy.Commissioner of [lncome Tax and another' Circle-S(1)' ][l'T ][Towers'] A.C.Guards, HYderabad. Z. nOOt.rLoinVOedutylnCfi, [ITO/ National Faceless Assessment ]:.??t!"r"o-B:l-r, Petition [Under ][Article ][226 ][of ][lrle ][Constitution ][of ][lndia ][praying ][that ][in ][the]circumstances [stated ][in ][i;"1il;;iilit-eo ][irrerewitr' ][the ][Hish ][court ][mav ][oe]oleased [to ][issue ][a writ in ][t"ne"n'i'i" ]"t [Mlnoalu-s;:S:HiH'-t3l,,t'7tt"l'"J]fffiio"n,;;;iJrins [that ][1) ][the ][notice ][it:y"9 ][0^'",ll"pANo.AAACLee43N ][on ][Ine]Liiioroirznz'-"'l':J."*"J,lr1?J:;Fi.:1T"li:.f oetitioner [and 2) ][the ][utt","#' ]iif ;.mliilil?ior Asst.Year [2014-15 ]o""ii,"ner,as [iilegal,.1r,no ]to [the ][judsmel^?,I,l"*?JJJ'r"],,ldo."nt of Honouraote"l:;;,i""i'.i.oct, contrary l. ,i"rrii"" [of ][provisions-u;.; ]; n)-tr,rr 1r.tii":t ;"*:f:;lrr$?i',13,,."Supreme [court ][and- ][pn|!'i$;;d;;Je ]pursuanti,t3"i;J''::ffi:1, [:lJ#;:,";; ][;n*ioi'"ubru ][in ][t'*] i.A.NO: [1 ] [2022 ] 1L^ ^ir^,,msrances stated ffixffH,lumHffiififfffi ?iltlli:ifi:"ffi [ls:ifi:I$iiltsD(scFoRrNcoMErAx)] --.=: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHI YANAND HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDAW.P.No.21766 of 2022 Order: (Per Hon'ble Si Justice Ujjal Bhugan) Heard Mr. Y. Rathnakar, learned counsel for thepetitioner and Mrs. K. Mamatha Chowdary, learned counselrepresenting Mr. J.V. prasad, learned standing counsei forIncome Tax for respondent. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India assailing the legality and validity of theassessment order dated 3I.03.2022, passed bv thesecon drespondent under Section 147 read with Section144 (B) of theIncome Tax Act, 196 1 (briefly .the Act, hereinafter) for theassessment year 2014_ lS. 3. petitioner had filed its return of income for thesaidassessment year showing loss income, which was processedunder Section 143 (1) of the Act. Thereafter notice dated/26.O3.2O21 was issued by the first respondent under Section148 of the Act for re_opening of assessment. 4. The assessment order on.re-opening has been chalenged.by the petitioner, firstly on the ground that no speaking orderwas passed by the assessing officer after the petitioner hadfiled objection to the reasons for issuing notice under Section148 of the Act. Second, contention is that there-opening of assessment is after 4 years but before 6 years, inwhich event the assessing officer has to record the reason thatincome chargeable to tax which has escaped assessmentamounts to or is likeiy to amount to Rs.one lakh or more interms of Section 149 ( 1 ) (b) of the Act. In this connection,learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reiiance on adecision of the Allahabad High Court in MAHESH KUMARGUFTA V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXr. Finally, onmerit learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section53 (a) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 cannot be invokedin the case of the petitioner. To support his contention he hasplaced reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court inSESHASAYEE STEELS PRIVATE LIMTED V. ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX2. 5. On the other hand, [iearned standing counsei ][submits]that the re-assessment [order ][is an ][appealable ][one' ][There ][is ][no]good reason to entertain the [challenge ][thereto ][under ][Article]226 of the Constitution [of ][India.] 6. We have heard learned [counsel ][for ][the ][parties ][and]considered the [materials ][on record] 5. On the other hand, [iearned standing counsei ][submits]that the re-assessment [order ][is an ][appealable ][one' ][There ][is ][no]good reason to entertain the [challenge ][thereto ][under ][Article]226 of the Constitution [of ][India.] 6. We have heard learned [counsel ][for ][the ][parties ][and]considered the [materials ][on record] 7 . Evidently, the impugned order [of ][assessment ][has ][been]passed under Section 147 read [with ][Section ][144 ][(Bl ][of ][the ][Act]following the re-assessment [proceedings.] B. Section 246 (Al of the [Act ][deals ][with ][appealable ][orders]before the Commissioner of [Income ][Tax (Appeals). ][Section 246](A) (1) (b) of the Act provides that an assessee [aggrieved ][by ][an]order of re-assessment [under ][Section ][147 ][of ][the Act ][may]prefer appeat before the Commissioner of [Income ][Tax](Appeals). 9. Grounds urged in the Writ Petition do not [commend ][to]us to take a view that the order of re-assessment should [be]examined by us in exercise of our writ [jurisdiction, ][when ][there],zis a statutory remedy of appeal available to the [petitioner]which is adequate and efficacious. That being the [position, ][we] I I leave it oPen to the [petitioner ][to ][seek ][his ][remedy ][of appeaf ][if]so advised. [However, ][we do ][not find ][aly ][good reason ][to]entertain [the ][writ ]Petition. 10. Subject [to ][above, ][Writ ][Petition is ][dismissed' ][No ][costs'] 11'Misceilaneousapplications,ifanypending,shallalsostand d[1Sp][ OS][ed ][of.] SD/.K.ONESIMASSISTANT //TRUE [COPY']sEcrro#FFrcER To1. 3ffi [33 ] [BRli,?il[tffi#lb'f ][i-83M3''o*'toPuc]]3. Two [CD CoPies]4. One [sPare ][coPY]S.Afir^- I HIGH DATED:27 [t0412022]1r,F- [STAf€]]}ji,Ii rl Jl]l{202?a))L.\oEsea.rc*[;C,] ORDERWP.No.21766 [of ][2022] DISMISSING [W.P]WITHOUT COSTS/ --"=\.t9)\_/{\.rt[h]b1)-t1