Telangana High Court
Sri Veerender Reddy Kura vs The Income Tax Officer on 28 July, 2025
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
WRIT PETITION Nos. 37829 of 2022; 21733 and 21815 of 2025
COMMON ORDER:
Learned counsel Sri Y.Ratnakar appears for the
petitioner in W.P.No.37829 of 2022. Learned counsel
Sri A.V.Raghu Ram appears for the petitioner in
W.P.No.21733 of 2025. Learned counsel
Sri Sheetal Srikanth appears for the petitioner in
W.P.No.21815 of 2025.
Ms. J.Sunitha, learned Senior Standing Counsel,
appears for Income Tax Department in W.P.Nos.37829 of
2022 and 21815 of 2025. Ms. Bokaro Sapna Reddy,
learned Senior Standing Counsel, appears for Income Tax
Department in W.P.No.21733 of 2025.
Ms. B.Kavitha Yadav, learned Central Government
counsel, appears for respondent No.1 in W.P.No.37829 of
2022 and Sri B. Mukherjee, learned counsel representing
Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General
2
of India, appears for respondent No.1 in W.P.No.21815 of
2025.
2. Regard being had to the similitude of the questions
involved in these writ petitions, the matters were
analogously heard.
3. In these writ petitions, the challenge is either to
notices which were issued under Section 148A of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as, “the Act”),
or to the assessment orders which have been passed under
Section 147 of the Act.
4. Learned counsel for the parties, during the course of
hearing, fairly submit that the issue involved in these writ
petitions was considered by a Division Bench of this Court
in W.P.No.26304 of 2024, vide order dated 28.04.2025,
and the said order squarely covers the present writ
petitions as well.
5. The relevant extract of the order dated 28.04.2025
passed in W.P.No.26304 of 2024 reads as under:
3
“15. What is worrying this Bench more is the fact
that an endeavour is being made whole heartedly to
ensure not to generate further litigation on issues
which have been laid to rest by a large number of
High Courts all of whom have taken a consistent
stand that the action of the Income Tax Department
being violative of the Finance Act, 2020 and
Finance Act, 2021. Now, in order to protect the
interest of the Revenue as also that of the assessee,
it would be trite at this juncture, if we dispose of
the writ petition with an observation/direction that
the disposal of the instant writ petition in terms of
the judgment rendered by this High Court in the
case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy v. Income-
Tax Officer [(2023) 156 taxmann.com 178
(Telangana)] shall however be subject to the
outcome of the SLPs which were filed by the Income
Tax Department and which is pending
consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
16. In the given facts and circumstances, this
Bench is of the considered opinion that unless and
until we do not timely dispose of matters which are
squarely covered by the decision of this Court and
which stands fortified by the decisions of the
various other High Courts on the very same issue,
the pendency of this High Court would further be
burdened which otherwise can be decided and
disposed of as a covered matter.
4
17. So far as the interest of the Revenue is
concerned, we are of the considered opinion that
the interest of the Revenue has already been
considered and protected, as has been observed in
paragraphs 36, 37 and 38 of the order which, for
ready reference, is reproduced hereunder:
36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the
impugned notices issued and the
proceedings drawn by the respondent-
Department is neither tenable, nor
sustainable. The notices so issued and the
procedure adopted being per se illegal,
deserves to be and are accordingly set
aside/quashed. As a consequence, all the
impugned orders getting quashed, the
consequential orders passed by the
respondent-Department pursuant to the
notices issued under Section
147 and 148 would also get quashed and it
is ordered accordingly. The reason we are
quashing the consequential order is on the
principles that when the initiation of the
proceedings itself was procedurally wrong,
the subsequent orders also gets nullified
automatically.
37. The preliminary objection raised by
the petitioner is sustained and all these
writ petitions stands allowed on this very
jurisdictional issue. Since the impugned
notices and orders are getting quashed on
the point of jurisdiction, we are not
inclined to proceed further and decide the
other issues raised by the petitioner which
stands reserved to be raised and
contended in an appropriate proceedings.
38. Since the Hon’ble Supreme Court
had, in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra,
as a one-time measure exercising the
powers under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India, permitted the
Revenue to proceed under the substituted
provisions, and this Court allowing the
petitions only on the procedural flaw, the
right conferred on the Revenue would
5
remain reserved to proceed further if they
so want from the stage of the order of the
Supreme Court in the case of Ashish
Agarwal, supra.
18. We would only further like to make
observations that since we are inclined to dispose of
the instant writ petition, conscious of the fact that
the earlier order of this High Court in the case of
Kankanala Ravindra Reddy v. Income-Tax
Officer [(2023) 156 taxmann.com 178 (Telangana)]
is subjected to challenge before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in SLP No.3574 of 2024, preferred
by the Income Tax Department, we make it clear
that allowing of the instant writ petition is subject
to outcome of the aforesaid SLP preferred by the
Revenue against the decision of this High Court in
the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy v.
Income-Tax Officer [(2023) 156 taxmann.com 178
(Telangana)]. This, in other words, would mean that
either of the parties, if they so want, may move an
appropriate petition seeking revival of this writ
petition in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the pending SLP on the very
same issue.
19. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands
allowed in favour of the assessee so far as the issue
of jurisdiction is concerned. As a consequence, the
impugned notice under challenge under Sections
148-A and 148 stands set aside/quashed. The
6
consequential orders, if any, also stand set
aside/quashed in similar terms as have been
passed by this High Court in the case of
Kankanala Ravindra Reddy v. Income-Tax
Officer [(2023) 156 taxmann.com 178 (Telangana)].
There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions
pending, if any, shall stand closed.”
6. In view of the consensus arrived at, these writ
petitions are also disposed of in terms of the order dated
28.04.2025 passed in W.P.No.26304 of 2024. However,
there shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
______________________________________
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ
______________________________________
P.SAM KOSHY, J
28.07.2025
Note: Registry shall enclose a copy of the order
dated 28.04.2025 passed in W.P.No.26304 of 2024
to this order.
B/o.
vs