M/S. Golden Palms Constructions vs The Income Tax Officer
2025 Latest Caselaw 6820 Tel

Telangana High Court

M/S. Golden Palms Constructions vs The Income Tax Officer on 1 December, 2025

Author: P.Sam Koshy

Bench: P.Sam Koshy

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT YDERABAD
            THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
                                  AND
 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

          WRIT PETITION Nos.10421, 10433 and 10450 of 2014


                             Date:01.12.2025
Between:-

M/s.Golden Palms Constructions, rep.by its Managing Partner,
Sourabh Modi, S/o.Satish Modi, R/o.Plot No.280, Road No.25,
Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.
                                                                ...Petitioner

                                   And
The Income Tax Officer,
Ward-10(4), Income Tax Towers,
A.C.Guards, Hyderabad.
                                                               ...Respondent

COMMON ORDER:

(per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)

Heard Mr.S.Ravi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for

Mr.Ch.Pushyam Kiran, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Ms.B.Sapna Reddy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the

Income Tax Department, for the respondent and perused the

record.

2. The instant are the three petitions which are filed assailing

the original of the assessment by the Income Tax Department.

3. Today, when the matters are taken-up for hearing, learned

Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue

raised in the instant batch of writ petitions is no longer res integra,

as this Court itself in identical batch of ITTA Nos.167 of 2012, 229

and 230 of 2016 all of which stood decided on 21.05.2025 stands

decided against the Revenue. The said judgment stands reported in

[2025]175 taxmann.com.76 (Telangana).

4. The aforesaid contention of learned Senior Counsel is not

disputed by the learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax

Department. Nonetheless, she only raises an objection that the

judgment relied upon were those which have been decided

exercising the appellate jurisdiction by the High Court, whereas,

here the petitioner without availing the remedy of appeal has

straightaway resorted to the writ jurisdiction.

5. Given the fact that the issue stands already answered by the High

Court on merits, we do not find any good reason as to why the present

batch of writ petitions should not be allowed on similar terms. So far as

the objection of the petitioner having not availed the statutory remedy of

appeal, we are of the considered opinion that said objection to be

considered after more than eleven years would not be justifiable

at this juncture. It ought to have been considered at the threshold, when

the writ petitions came up for hearing more than a decade ago. The said

objection of the Standing Counsel thus stands overruled.

6. We are inclined to allow this batch of writ petitions and the

impugned order of assessment under challenge in all these writ petitions

stands set aside and quashed.

7. The Writ Petitions stand allowed in terms of the order

dated 21.05.2025 passed by this Court in the aforesaid ITTA Nos.167 of

2012 and batch. No costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

closed.

__________________ P.SAM KOSHY, J

_______________________________ SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO, J 01.12.2025 Nvl