Telangana High Court
Mr. K.Suri Babu vs The Income Tax Officer on 1 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN
WRIT PETITION No. 9483 of 2026
DATED : 01.04.2026
Between:
Mr. K. Suri Babu
... Petitioner
AND
The Income Tax Officer,
Ward No.11, I.T. Towers,
Hyderabad and nine others
... Respondents
ORDER:
Sri Lanka Rajender Prasad, learned counsel appears for petitioner.
Smt. J. Sunitha, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department appears for respondent No.1.
Mrs. Bokaro Sapna Reddy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department appears for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
Sri N. Praveen Reddy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department appears for respondent Nos.5 and
7. 2 HCJ (AKrS, J) & GMM, J W.P.No.9483 of 2026
2. Petitioner, who is the Managing Partner of the firm, namely, M/s. Ever Shine Constructions, has been representing before the Department to take action against other partners as the aforesaid firm is not able to file regular returns. The deed of partnership is annexed to the instant Writ Petition. Apparently, the partners are in dispute. The deed of partnership provides for arbitration clause. However, at the same time, the Managing Partner of the firm is authorized to file returns under Section 140(cc) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Apparently, the petitioner has not been filing the returns since 2005-06. The nature of dispute raised by the petitioner in his representations to the Department is inter se amongst the partners in respect of which the Department does not have any statutory obligation to act upon. Therefore, the writ petitioner does not have any basis to seek issuance of a writ of Mandamus alleging inaction against respondent Nos.1 to 7, the official respondents. In case proceedings are issued by the Department for non-filing of returns or evasion of taxes, it is for the firm and the partners of the firm to explain. However, 3 HCJ (AKrS, J) & GMM, J W.P.No.9483 of 2026 that is not the subject matter of the present Writ Petition. Therefore, we do not find any basis to entertain this Writ Petition.
Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed as misconceived. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
____________________________ APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ _____________________ G.M.MOHIUDDIN, J 1st APRIL, 2026.
kvni