Muralikrishna Pothuguntla vs Income Tax Officer,
2025 Latest Caselaw 2340 Tel

Telangana High Court

Muralikrishna Pothuguntla vs Income Tax Officer, on 19 February, 2025

        THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
                              AND
             THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

                   WRIT PETITION No.4835 OF 2025

ORDER (per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice):

Heard Sri P.Soma Shekar Reddy, learned counsel for the

petitioner; Ms. Bokaro Sapna Reddy, Junior Standing Counsel for

Income Tax for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Gadi Praveen

Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for respondent

No.3.

2. This is the second visit of the petitioner to this Court.

Earlier, the petitioner filed W.P.No.2723 of 2025 against notice

dated 31.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act,

1961 (for short, the Act). The said Writ Petition was disposed of

on 31.01.2025 by reserving liberty to the petitioner to raise all

relevant objections in the pending assessment proceedings.

3. Now, the impugned assessment order dated 30.01.2025 is

called in question by contending that issuance of show cause

notice itself is bad in law. In support of this submission, a

number of decisions of the Supreme Court were cited. However,

on a specific query from the Bench, learned counsel for the

petitioner fairly submitted that neither in reply to the show cause

notice nor during the assessment proceedings, the petitioner

raised objection regarding jurisdiction. On the strength of these

judgments, it is submitted that the objection of jurisdiction can be

taken before the Writ Court for the first time.

4. The other side submitted that the petitioner has statutory

remedy of appeal.

5. In the first round itself in W.P.No.2723 of 2025, the petition

was not entertained and the petitioner was permitted to raise all

objections before the authorities. Admittedly, the petitioner has

not raised any such objections by filing reply to the show cause

notice or during assessment proceedings.

6. The Apex Court in Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam

Ghouse 1 opined that the scope of interference on show cause

notice is limited. It was held as under:

"5... Whether the show-cause notice was founded on any legal premises, is a jurisdictional issue which can be even be urged by the recipient of the notice and such issues also can be adjudicated by the authority issuing the very notice initially, before the aggrieved could approach the court..."

7. Since the petitioner's previous petition itself was not

entertained because of availability of in-house statutory remedy,

(2004) 3 SCC 440

we find no reason to take a different view in this round. The Writ

Petition is, accordingly, disposed of by reserving liberty to the

petitioner to assail the impugned assessment order before the

appropriate authority. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

___________________ SUJOY PAUL, ACJ

___________________ RENUKA YARA, J 19th February, 2025.

TJMR