Wp/31747/2022 Of Srinivas Reddy Sudireddy v. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax And 2 Others

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) IUONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUSTTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWOTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYANANDAND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:3 1747 0F 2022 Between: Srinivas Reddv Sudireddy, S/o Govardhan Reddy, Aged about 55 years, Occ;Business. R/o H.No i03 37211, Hindupuri Cotony] Viava;;g;r, K;;i;;;"r,Telangana - 505001. ...PETITIONER AND The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Eighth Floor. Aayakar Bhavan,Opp. L B Stadium, Basheerbagh, HyOeranjO _"SOO OO+.Opp. L B Stadium, Basheerbagh, HyOeranjO _"SOO OO+.2The Adtionall LoinU Oeputy / Assistant Commjssioner of lncome Tax/rncome tax Uttrcer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, lncome Taxrncome tax Uttrcer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, lncome TaxDepartment, 4th Floor, C Block, SpM Civic Center, ruew Delhi _ 110001. 3The^lncome Tax Officer, Ward 2, lncome Tax Office, Karimnagar, Telangana _Tax Officer, Ward 2, lncome Tax Office, Karimnagar, Telangana _505001 . ...RESPONDENTS Petition Under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, tre uigrr 'Co'u; ;;y ;"pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particurarry one in thenature of writ of mandamus, decraring the action of the Respondent rut.z i.e., ir,"Assessing officer, in passing the impugned orJer ot. 2sto3r2oz2 for theAssessment year 2012_19 assessing total income of Assesse atThousand Rs.24,35,26,500/- and Five (Rupees Hundred) Twenty-Four-Crore and tfrirty_Five raising Lakhs Oemand i*"niy .i,-of"on..qu"nity T,1.1191.r-tf 93t J,Trqu"_: [Forty ][drore sixty ][rhree ][Latihs ][Forty"eisht ihousano]pflncrptes :y::llldt:g 9t..na_t{al aq [N,?"ty ]justice [Three) ]and [as ][being ]consequenfly [arbitrary. ][unjustified ]set aside [an-o ]the [allo ]Order [asainst ]of the[the]xespondent No.2/Assessing officer under Section 144 of the lncome Tax Act,196 1 dated 3or03r2o22 to remit the assessment of the petitioner, uact< to iheRespondent No.2/Assessing officer for assessing the case of the petitioner for the Assessment Yeat 2017-18 through a de-novo inquiry after giving opportunity to thePetitioner/Assessee to explain his case. l.A.NO:1 OF 2022 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to staythe impugned Order of the Respondent No.2, i..e. the Assessing Order dated2510312022 for the Assessment Year 2017 -18 assessing total income of Assesseat Rs.24,35.26,5001 (Rupees Twenty-Four Crore Thirty-Five Lakhs Twenty sixThousand and Five Hundred) and consequently raising demand ofRs.40,63,48,293/- [(Rupees ]Forty Crore Sixty Three Lakhs Forty eight ThousandTwo Hundred and Ninety Three), pending disposal of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI.P.SOMA SEKHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : Ms.SAPNA REDDY The Court made the following ORDER THE HON'BLE T AND THE HON'BLE [C.V.B HASKAR REDDY] WRIT PETI [No.3][ L747 ][of2O22] ORDER: eet [0&' ][Hon'ble ][te ][Chef ][Jttstice ][Ullol Bhugon)] Heard Mr. P.Soma [Sekhar ][Reddy, ][learned ][counsel ][for]the petitioner [and ][Ms. ][Sapna ][Reddy, ][learned ][counsel ][lor]the respondents. 2. Challenge made [in ][this writ ][petition ][is ][to ][the legalitl']and validity ol [the ][assessment ][order ][dated ][25 ]['O3 ]['2022]passed by respondent [No.2 ][under ][Section 147 read with]Section 144 11448 [ol ][the ][Income Tax ][Act, ][1961 ][(briefly' ]['the]Act' hereinafter) [for ][the ][assessment ][yeal ][2Ol7-14'] The Court made the following ORDER THE HON'BLE T AND THE HON'BLE [C.V.B HASKAR REDDY] WRIT PETI [No.3][ L747 ][of2O22] ORDER: eet [0&' ][Hon'ble ][te ][Chef ][Jttstice ][Ullol Bhugon)] Heard Mr. P.Soma [Sekhar ][Reddy, ][learned ][counsel ][for]the petitioner [and ][Ms. ][Sapna ][Reddy, ][learned ][counsel ][lor]the respondents. 2. Challenge made [in ][this writ ][petition ][is ][to ][the legalitl']and validity ol [the ][assessment ][order ][dated ][25 ]['O3 ]['2022]passed by respondent [No.2 ][under ][Section 147 read with]Section 144 11448 [ol ][the ][Income Tax ][Act, ][1961 ][(briefly' ]['the]Act' hereinafter) [for ][the ][assessment ][yeal ][2Ol7-14'] 3. Petitioner before [us ][is ][an ][assessee ][under the ][Act]having the status [of individual' ][From ][the ][assessment]order it [transpires ][that ][petitioner ][did not Iile ][return ][for ][the]assessment [year ][under consideration' ][The ][case ][was ][taken]up for reopening [under ][Section ][147 ][of ][the ][Act' ][whereafter]lhe [impugned ][assessment ][order ][was passed'] 4. Learne d counsel lor thc petitioner submit.s that nonotice issued in conncction rvith the reopening r'r,as servedupon the petitioner. Thcrefore, petitioner did not have anyopportunity to contest the proceedings. He si.rbmits thatthe assessmr:nt order mat' be set aside and the matterremanrled back to the lile of respondent No.2.5. We have perused the impugned order of assessmentParagraph 5 of the assessment order says that notices rvereissued undel Section 142(1) of the Act dated 13.11.2021and 29.11.2021 and those n,ere served orr the assessee(petitioner) . However, there was no compliance. Inparagraph 6 of the assessment order, a statement intabular lorm has been furnished n'herein various dates ofservice of notices on the petitioner are mentioned. On thatbasis, it is stated that relerence was made to theverification unit to serve the notices issued previously tothe petitioner through speed post. It is further stated thatthe notices were delivered to the assessee (petitioner) onlO .O2.2022 as per verification report. However, thepetitioner did not reply. 6. There is a general presumption as to correctness ofstatements made in a government order. We have 6i rcasorl to clisbclieve the aforesard statemcnt of lact madeby the assessing authority. That apart, challenge has beenmade to the order of asscssment. The said order is anappealable one under Sectior-r 246A of the Act where firstround of appeal lies belore the Commissioner of IncomeTa-x (Appeals). Thereafter, if the situation so warrants,t.here are provisions for lurther appeals before the IncomeTa-x Appellate Tribunal as u'ell as to the High Court7. Therefore, u,hen there is an adequate and efficaciousalternative remedy available to the petitioner, we are notinclined to entertain the writ petition.B. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.made to the order of asscssment. The said order is anappealable one under Sectior-r 246A of the Act where firstround of appeal lies belore the Commissioner of IncomeTa-x (Appeals). Thereafter, if the situation so warrants,t.here are provisions for lurther appeals before the IncomeTa-x Appellate Tribunal as u'ell as to the High Court7. Therefore, u,hen there is an adequate and efficaciousalternative remedy available to the petitioner, we are notinclined to entertain the writ petition.B. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Miscellaneous applications pending, il any, shallstand closcd. Hou,ever, there shall be no order as [to ][costs.] SD/. G.ESHAASSISTAISTRARSECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To'1. One CC to SRI.P.SOMA SEKHAR REDDY, Advocate 2. One CC to Ms.SAPNA REDDY, Advocate 3. Two CD Copies4. One spare copyS.AGJP&sts HIGH COURT DATED:0810812022 ORDER WP.No.31747 ot 2022 DISMISSING THE W.PWITHOUT COSTS.WITHOUT COSTS. vdorNn ,) |:15 [otr ][firl]1t .*a'