Wp/6942/2006 Of M/S. Tirumala Estates v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYAND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION NO: 6942 OF 2006 Between: M/S. TTRUMALA ESTATES, 3-6-262, Himayathnagar, [Hyderabad, ][Rep.]by itsManaging Partner, Mr. A. Narsimha Reddy......PETlTtOl{ER AND 'l . The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle No. 4(1) HYDERABAD- 2. lncome Tax Officer, Ward No.1, Nirmal, ADILABAD [DISTRICT.] .....RESPONDENTS 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 writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order ordirection declaring the action of the ['1't ][respondent ][in ][passing ][the order ][dated ][27-]1-2006 under Section 143(3) of lncome Tax Act, 1961 [for ][the ][assessment ][year]2OOO-2001 treating the income of the house [property ][by ][disallowing ][the ][claam ][of]the petitioner as arbitrary, contrary to the [Provisions ]of [the ][lncome Tax Act,]without [jurisdiction ]and also insubordination and consequently [set-aside the]proceedings of the 1't respondent as null and void and also declare the action [of]the respondents in issuing the notices [under ][Section ][148 ][of ][the ][lncome Tax ][Act]for the assessment years 2002-2003 [to ][2005-2O06 ][to ][the petitioner ][and ][also ][to]all the partners for the years 2000-01 [to ][2005-06 ][is ][not ][justified.] l.A.NO:1 OF 2006(WPMP. NO: 8935 OF 2006) Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the crrcumstances statedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased togrant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the orders of the ['1'r ]respondentdated 27-1-2006 for the assessment year 2000-2001 and also issuing noticesunder Section 148 of the Act by the Respondents for the assessment years2000-01 to 2005-2006 to the petitioner and partners pending disposal of theabove writ petition, as other wise the petitioner will be put to severe loss andhardship.in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased togrant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the orders of the ['1'r ]respondentdated 27-1-2006 for the assessment year 2000-2001 and also issuing noticesunder Section 148 of the Act by the Respondents for the assessment years2000-01 to 2005-2006 to the petitioner and partners pending disposal of theabove writ petition, as other wise the petitioner will be put to severe loss andhardship. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI SHAIK JEELANI BASHA Counsel for the Respondents : SRI B.NARASIMHA SHARMA, ADVOCATE FORsRl J.V.PRASAD (SC FOR TNCOME TAX) The Court made the following ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUI(ARAMJIWRIT PEIITION No.6942 0F 20,0,6 JUDGMEI{T: (per Hon'ble Si Jt.stice P.SAM KoSHy) The challenge under the present Writ petition is to the impugned order, dated 2Z .0L.2006 passed by respondentNo. 1 under Sectionl43(3) of Income Tax Act, 196l (for short"the Act, 196l"l for the Assessment year 200O_O I . 2- The petitioner seems to be aggrieved by the order ofrespondent No.l in taxing the income of the house propertyby disallowing the claim of the petitioner as arbitrary- 3. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, thelearned counsel for the petitioner submits that in case of theAssessee itself the Income Tax Tribunal, (for short ,.theI.T.A.T.1 for the subsequent years till now has reversed theorder of the Assessing Officer, whereby the petitioner's claimfor allowing expenses under the head of interest of partnerloan was disallowed by the Assessing Ofhcer, which was subsequently [set-aside ][by ][the ][I'T'A'T' ][in ][all ][the ][subsequent]Assessment [Years.] 2- The petitioner seems to be aggrieved by the order ofrespondent No.l in taxing the income of the house propertyby disallowing the claim of the petitioner as arbitrary- 3. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, thelearned counsel for the petitioner submits that in case of theAssessee itself the Income Tax Tribunal, (for short ,.theI.T.A.T.1 for the subsequent years till now has reversed theorder of the Assessing Officer, whereby the petitioner's claimfor allowing expenses under the head of interest of partnerloan was disallowed by the Assessing Ofhcer, which was subsequently [set-aside ][by ][the ][I'T'A'T' ][in ][all ][the ][subsequent]Assessment [Years.] 4. Subsequently, [the ][petitioner ][has ][brought on ][record ][few]of the orders [passed ][by ][the ][I'T'A'T' ][in respect ][of ][the petitioner]itself for the [subsequent years ][2OO2-O3' ][2OO3'O4 ]' [2OO4-O5]and also in [respect ][of ][the ][Assessment ][Years ][2O17-i8 ][and]uide [orders, ][d'ated ][26'04'2017 and ][25'05'2023]2}la-19 respectively. [It ][has ][not ][been ][questioned ][by ][the ][Revenue ][any]further and the [petitioner has ][been ][extended ][the ][benefrt ][of]treating the interest [on ][the ][house ][property ][as ][interest ][on]partners loan [account.] 5. The aforesaid [submissions ][made by ][the ][learned counsel for]petitioner and the [subsequent orders passed ][by ][the ] [T-A'T' ][have]not been [disputed ][by ][the ][learned ][Senior ][Standing ][Counsel]representing [the Income Tax ][Department' ][In ][view ][of ][the ][same' ][we]are inclined [to ][allow ][the ][Writ ][Petition ][to ][the ][aforesaid ][extent ][by]quashing the order, [dated ][27 ]'Ol '2C,O6 [so ][far ][as ][the ][disallowance ][by]the Assessing [Oflicer ][so ][far ][as ][the ][interest ][on ][thc ][partners ][loan] PSK,J &, IfTR"J account is concerned that pertains to the interest received from thehouse property.house property. In view of the aforesaid view of the aforesaid of the aforesaid aforesaid circumstances, the impugned order, 6In view of the aforesaid view of the aforesaid of the aforesaid aforesaid circumstances, the impugned order,the impugned order,dated 27.01-2006 for rhe Assessment years 2OOO_01 standsset-aside/quashed to the aforesaid limited extent in terms of thedecision rendered by the I.T.A.T. in the afore referred orderspertaining to the petitioner for the subsequent Assessment yearspertaining to the petitioner for the subsequent Assessment years 7. In the result, the Writ petition stands allowed. There shallbe no order as to costs- Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, ifany, shall stand closed. That Rule Nisi [has ][been ][absotute ][as ][above']I witn""s the Hon'ble [the Ghief ][Justice ][ALOK ARADHE' ][on ][this]/ i;il;;il-s;;;ilh dav of November, [Two ][rhousand ][and ][rwentv ][three'] SD/.C. PRAVEEN ASSISTANT REGISTRAR//TRUE COPY/, *ynt/SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Assistant [Commissioner of ][lncome ][Tax' ][Cir.cle ][No{l ][), Hyderabad'],: iil; i;;;; iaiottic"t, [ward ][No'1' ][Nirmal' ][Adilabad District']i: d; cc i;-srishaik i;-srishaik [[Jeelani ]][Basha, ][AdvocalelQeucl][[lNcoME ]][rAx) ],: iil; i;;;; iaiottic"t, [ward ][No'1' ][Nirmal' ][Adilabad District']i: d; cc i;-srishaik i;-srishaik [[Jeelani ]][Basha, ][AdvocalelQeucl][[lNcoME ]][rAx) ] cc i;-srishaik i;-srishaik [[Jeelani ]];. o;; cc io stl [J.V.priiaa ][(SC FoR ][[lNcoME ]][rAx) ][[oPUC]] 5. Two CD CoPies SABS I i I HIGH COURT DATED:0711112023 ORDER WP.No.6942 of 2006 ALLOWTNG THE W.PWITHOUT COSTS.WITHOUT COSTS. d\nnu--@4*Y4\.)t/7 $E [r€]Zi [7o'it2t23o**rC oiisrrr,l C