Telangana High Court
John Foundation, vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, on 7 August, 2025
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE
SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO
W.P.Nos.23376, 23388, 23434, 23436 & 23438_2025
COMMON ORDER:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)
Heard Ms. Kasina Prabhabati, learned counsel representing
Mr.A.V.Raghu Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr. N. Praveen Reddy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the
Income Tax Department for the respondent. Perused the record.
2. The entire batch of writ petitions pertains to the same
assessee, pertaining to different assessment years.
3. Since the question of law raised being common, we proceed
to decide and dispose of these writ petitions by a common order.
4. The challenge in these writ petitions is to the notice issued
by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the
Income Tax Act, 1961.
5. The contention of the petitioner is that in the light of the
amendment that was brought to the Income Tax Act by way of
Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f., 01.04.2021 onwards, the proceedings
ought to had been initiated in a faceless manner. However,
contrary to this, the proceedings have been initiated by the
jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The question of law involved in
the instant batch of writ petitions already came up for
consideration before this High Court in W.P.No.13859 of 2023
and other batch of writ petitions in the light of the three decisions
rendered by the Division Bench of this High Court, one in the case
of KANKANALA RAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX
OFFICER1, second in the case of SRI VENKATARAMANA
REDDY PATLOOLA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX 2 and the third in the case of KINGS
PRIDE INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD., vs. DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3.
6. The learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax
Department does not dispute the fact that the issue involved in the
[(2023) 156 taxmann.com 178 (Telangana)]
[2024) 167 taxmann.com 411 (Telangana)]
W.P.No.26645 of 2024 decided on 14.07.2025
instant batch of writ petitions also being the same, nonetheless,
he only made a request that in the other writ petitions which were
disposed of by this Bench had made an observation that since the
decision in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy (1 supra) is
pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
allowing of these writ petitions should also be subject to the
outcome of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
challenge made by the Revenue to the judgment in the case of
Kankanala Ravindra Reddy (1 supra) i.e., S.L.P (C) No.3574 of
2024. We do find some force in the request made by the learned
Standing Counsel for the department. Since the question of law
raised in this batch of writ petitions already stood decided in the
aforesaid writ petitions in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy
(1 supra) Sri Venkataramana Reddy Patloola (2 supra) and Kings
Pride Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd.,(3 supra), we are inclined to allow
these writ petitions being on similar terms.
7. Accordingly, this batch of writ petitions stands allowed.
However, the decision of this Bench in allowing this batch
of writ petitions would be subject to the outcome of
S.L.P (C) No.3574 of 2024, pending consideration before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
_____________________
P.SAM KOSHY, J
_________________________________
SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO, J
07.08.2025
Lrkm/Gnp
