Telangana High Court
M/S. Bekem Infra Projects Pvt Ltd vs Assessment Unit on 29 July, 2025
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
WRIT PETITION No.22003 of 2025
ORDER:
Mr. A.V.Raghu Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Ms. Bokaro Sapna Reddy, learned Senior Standing
Counsel for Income Tax Department appearing for the
respondents.
2. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order
dated 06.04.2024 passed by respondent No.2 under Section
148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to
as, "the Act") and the notice dated 06.04.2024 issued under
Section 148 of the Act.
3. Learned counsel for the parties, during the course
of hearing, fairly submit that the issue involved in this writ
petition was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in
W.P.No.26304 of 2024, vide order dated 28.04.2025, and the
said order squarely covers the present writ petition as well.
4. The relevant extract of the order dated 28.04.2025
passed in W.P.No.26304 of 2024 reads as under:
"15. What is worrying this Bench more is the fact
that an endeavour is being made whole heartedly to
ensure not to generate further litigation on issues
which have been laid to rest by a large number of High
Courts all of whom have taken a consistent stand that
the action of the Income Tax Department being
violative of the Finance Act, 2020 and Finance Act,
2021. Now, in order to protect the interest of the
Revenue as also that of the assessee, it would be trite
at this juncture, if we dispose of the writ petition with
an observation/direction that the disposal of the
instant writ petition in terms of the judgment rendered
by this High Court in the case of Kankanala
Ravindra Reddy v. Income-Tax Officer [(2023) 156
taxmann.com 178 (Telangana)] shall however be
subject to the outcome of the SLPs which were filed by
the Income Tax Department and which is pending
consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
16. In the given facts and circumstances, this Bench
is of the considered opinion that unless and until we
do not timely dispose of matters which are squarely
covered by the decision of this Court and which stands
fortified by the decisions of the various other High
Courts on the very same issue, the pendency of this
High Court would further be burdened which
otherwise can be decided and disposed of as a covered
matter.
17. So far as the interest of the Revenue is
concerned, we are of the considered opinion that the
interest of the Revenue has already been considered
and protected, as has been observed in paragraphs 36,
37 and 38 of the order which, for ready reference, is
reproduced hereunder:
36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the
impugned notices issued and the proceedings
drawn by the respondent-Department is
neither tenable, nor sustainable. The notices
so issued and the procedure adopted being
per se illegal, deserves to be and are
accordingly set aside/quashed. As a
consequence, all the impugned orders getting
quashed, the consequential orders passed by
the respondent-Department pursuant to the
notices issued under Section
147 and 148 would also get quashed and it is
ordered accordingly. The reason we are
quashing the consequential order is on the
principles that when the initiation of the
proceedings itself was procedurally wrong, the
subsequent orders also gets nullified
automatically.
37. The preliminary objection raised by the
petitioner is sustained and all these writ
petitions stands allowed on this very
jurisdictional issue. Since the impugned
notices and orders are getting quashed on the
point of jurisdiction, we are not inclined to
proceed further and decide the other issues
raised by the petitioner which stands reserved
to be raised and contended in an appropriate
proceedings.
38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had,
in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a
one-time measure exercising the powers
under Article 142 of the Constitution of India,
permitted the Revenue to proceed under the
substituted provisions, and this Court
allowing the petitions only on the procedural
flaw, the right conferred on the Revenue
would remain reserved to proceed further if
they so want from the stage of the order of the
Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal,
supra.
18. We would only further like to make observations
that since we are inclined to dispose of the instant writ
petition, conscious of the fact that the earlier order of
this High Court in the case of Kankanala Ravindra
Reddy v. Income-Tax Officer [(2023) 156
taxmann.com 178 (Telangana)] is subjected to
challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP
No.3574 of 2024, preferred by the Income Tax
Department, we make it clear that allowing of the
instant writ petition is subject to outcome of the
aforesaid SLP preferred by the Revenue against the
decision of this High Court in the case of Kankanala
Ravindra Reddy v. Income-Tax Officer [(2023) 156
taxmann.com 178 (Telangana)]. This, in other words,
would mean that either of the parties, if they so want,
may move an appropriate petition seeking revival of
this writ petition in the light of the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the pending SLP on the very
same issue.
19. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands
allowed in favour of the assessee so far as the issue of
jurisdiction is concerned. As a consequence, the
impugned notice under challenge under Sections 148-
A and 148 stands set aside/quashed. The
consequential orders, if any, also stand set
aside/quashed in similar terms as have been passed
by this High Court in the case of Kankanala
Ravindra Reddy v. Income-Tax Officer [(2023) 156
taxmann.com 178 (Telangana)]. There shall be no
order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending,
if any, shall stand closed."
5. In view of the consensus arrived at, this Writ
Petition is also disposed of in terms of the order dated
28.04.2025 passed in W.P.No.26304 of 2024. However, there
shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
______________________________________
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ
______________________________________
P.SAM KOSHY, J
Date: 29.07.2025
Note: Registry shall enclose a copy of
the order dated 28.04.2025 passed in
W.P.No.26304 of 2024 to this order.
B/o.
KL
