Telangana High Court
Mohammed Mahboob Khan vs The Union Of India on 13 June, 2025
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA
WRIT PETITION No.12275 of 2025
ORDER :
(per the Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)
Heard Mr. Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel, representing
Ms. Vedula Chitralekha, learned counsel on record for the petitioner, and
Ms. Bokaro Sapna Reddy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax
Department for respondent Nos.2 to 4.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed aggrieved by the initiation of the
assessment proceedings by respondent No.4 under Section 147 and 148 of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') through the order dated 19.03.2024,
and the consequential assessment order dated 12.03.2025 passed by respondent
No.3 pertaining to assessment year 2017-18.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has been primarily assailing the
initiation of proceedings and the consequential order on the ground that the
assessment order has been passed taking into consideration the materials beyond
the show-cause notices.
4. In the course of arguments, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
referred to the contents of the impugned assessment order for the Assessment
Year 2017-18 and contended that the summary and information provided in the
show-cause notices and the transactions reflected therein are to be within the
contents of the show-cause notices which were issued to the petitioner and, thus,
the assessment order being beyond the contents of the show-cause notices is
per se bad and illegal.
5. According to the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the details of
alleged escaped income as passed under Section 148A of the Act is entirely
different from details of the unexplained cash credits as shown in the
assessment order dated 12.03.2025 and, therefore, the impugned order is
unsustainable and liable to be interdicted under the Writ jurisdiction of this
Court. According to the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, before
passing an order under Section 147 of the Act, a notice has to be issued under
Section 148 and Section 148A calling upon the assessee to provide information
in respect of the income chargeable to tax and which has escaped assessment.
6. It was the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that
the assessee needs to be issued with a notice giving a clear thirty (30) days
period to provide necessary information in respect of the income chargeable to
tax and which has escaped assessment. It was also the contention of the learned
Senior Counsel for the petitioner that even otherwise the Income Tax
Department has not taken proper prior approval from the specified authority as
is required under Section 151 of the Act. According to the learned Senior
Counsel it is only the Principal Chief Commissioner or the Principal Director
General, or when there is no Principal Chief Commissioner or the Principal
Director General, the Chief Commissioner or the Director General shall be the
specified authority in the event if the proceedings have been initiated beyond a
period of three (03) years from the end of the relevant assessment year.
7. In view of the aforesaid lacunas, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
insisted for the writ petition to be entertained even though there is a statutory
remedy of appeal available under the Act.
8. On the other hand, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax
Department, opposing the writ petition, contended that the very same assessee
had recently filed yet another writ petition vide Writ Petition No.12365 of 2025
before this Bench itself challenging another assessment order wherein also
similar grounds were raised and this Bench has dismissed the said writ petition
reserving the right of the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal under the Act
vide order dated 24.04.2025. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income
Tax Department further referred to the impugned order and contended that there
were numerous notices issued to the petitioner on repeated occasions and in
spite of repeated notices being issued, the petitioner did not think it proper to
respond to any of these notices and submit whatever contention / objection or
submission that he wanted to make pertaining to the show-cause notices and, in
the absence of any proper response or reply on behalf of the petitioner, the
Department was left with no other option, but to proceed further and pass the
assessment order.
9. According to the learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax
Department, given the fact that the impugned order has been passed after proper
issuance and service of notice to the petitioner, there is hardly any scope left for
this Bench to entertain the writ petition particularly when the petitioner has a
statutory remedy of appeal. According to the learned Senior Standing Counsel
for Income Tax Department, the petitioner can raise all these grounds which he
has raised in this writ petition itself before the Appellate Authority and, which if
raised, shall be duly considered by the Appellate Authority in accordance with
law. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
10. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of
records, and if we peruse the series of notices which were issued, it would
reveal that in one or the other notice the Department did refer to the details of
certain transactions showing the income which the assessee had escaped
assessment. Further, perusal of the pleadings and the averments made would
further go to show that it is not a case where the petitioner is disputing that he
had not received notice from the Department at all. More importantly, learned
Senior Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to give even one justifiable
ground of having not responded to the show-cause notices received by them.
11. Though the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
relied upon the decision of the High Court of Bombay in the case of
Commissioner of Income-Tax-5, Mumbai vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. 1 ,
highlighting the aspect that a writ petition can be entertained under similar
circumstances, however a perusal of facts in the instant case and the factual
matrix under which the said judgment was passed is in an entirely different
contextual backdrop unlike the facts in the instant case. Therefore, the grounds
raised by the petitioner in the instant case are grounds which are very much
available to him while availing the statutory remedy of appeal under the Income
Tax Act itself. Hence, the said judgment is distinguishable on its own facts.
12. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix of the case and there being
sufficient material that the petitioner had received the notice issued by the
Department and had chosen not to contest the case before the Competent
Authority by responding to the show-cause notices and now the final
assessment order having also passed, we are of the considered opinion that it is
not a fit case for the High Court to invoke the writ jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution of India testing the veracity of the order passed by
[2011] 331 ITR 236 (Bombay)
respondent No.3. These very grounds which the petitioner has raised can also
be raised by him before the Appellate Authority and which the Appellate
Authority shall consider strictly in accordance with law.
13. The Bench also stands persuaded with the previous order passed in
respect of another assessment year which was challenged by the very same
petitioner vide Writ Petition No.12365 of 2025 decided on 24.04.2025 which
we had dismissed permitting the petitioner to avail statutory remedy available to
him under the Act.
14. For all the aforesaid reasons, we are not inclined to entertain the present
writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed reserving the right
of petitioner to avail statutory remedy of appeal available to him under the Act.
15. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
________________
P.SAM KOSHY, J
_______________________________
NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J
Date: 13.06.2025
GSD
