Telangana High Court
Mr. Atul Sharma vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Income ... on 20 June, 2025
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO
NANDIKONDA
W.P.No.17123 OF 2025
ORDER:(per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy) Heard Mr. A.V.A.Siva Kartikeya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.B. Sapna Reddy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department for respondent Nos.1 to 6. Perused the record.
2. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 02.12.2024 rejecting the stay application of the petitioner, pending disposal of the appeal before the first Appellate Authority for the assessment year 2018-19 and the garnishee notice issued by respondent No.1 dated 29.04.2025 to respondent No.7 i.e., the banker of the petitioner.
3. The petitioner herein had filed statutory remedy of an appeal under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the 'Act') before the Appellate Authority along with the Memo of Appeal. The petitioner had also preferred interim protection so far as the recovery proceedings are concerned under 2 Section 220(6) of the Act. It is this application which stands decided by the impugned order.
4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the assessment order dated 08.12. 2023 itself, in the light of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy vs. Income Tax Officer1, is not sustainable as the notice under Section 148 was issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whereas, as per the amended provision of the Act, that ought to had been issued in the faceless manner. In the light of the aforesaid decision, there is all likelihood of the appeal pending before the Appellate Authority also having the same fate of the Assessment Order not being maintainable and being set aside.
5. In the light of the subsequent amendments brought in the Act as also in the light of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & ors., v. Ashish Agarwal and others 2, the Assessing Authority ought to had 1 (2023) 156 taxmann.com 178(TELANGANA) 2 2022 SCC OnLine SC 543 3 granted interim protection to the Assessee till finalization of the appeal which the Assessing Authority has not considered.
6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner so far as the 148 notice issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer not being in dispute by the learned Standing Counsel for the Department and also in the light of the aforesaid judgments rendered by this Court in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy (supra 1) and in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ashish Agarwal (supra 2), we are of the considered opinion that the Assessing Authority in the course of deciding the petition under Section 220(6) of the Act, ought to have taken a more pragmatic view and should had kept the recovery proceedings in abeyance, pending the appeal before the Appellate Authority.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, we dispose of the present writ petition at this juncture directing the Assessing Officer not to pursue with the recovery proceedings in terms of the impugned order dated 02.12.2024 till the appeal for the assessment year 2018-19 is finally decided.
4
8. Considering the fact that the appeal was filed in the year 2024, we expect that the Appellate Authority shall take up the appeal and decide the same as expeditiously as possible. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ P.SAM KOSHY, J _________________________________ NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J 20.06.2025 Lrkm