Telangana High Court
Mr. Atul Sharma vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Income ... on 20 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
W.P.No.17123 OF 2025
ORDER:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)
Heard Mr. A.V.A.Siva Kartikeya, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Ms.B. Sapna Reddy, learned Senior Standing
Counsel for the Income Tax Department for respondent Nos.1 to 6.
Perused the record.
2. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order
dated 02.12.2024 rejecting the stay application of the petitioner,
pending disposal of the appeal before the first Appellate Authority
for the assessment year 2018-19 and the garnishee notice issued
by respondent No.1 dated 29.04.2025 to respondent No.7 i.e., the
banker of the petitioner.
3. The petitioner herein had filed statutory remedy of an
appeal under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for
short, the 'Act') before the Appellate Authority along with the
Memo of Appeal. The petitioner had also preferred interim
protection so far as the recovery proceedings are concerned under
Section 220(6) of the Act. It is this application which stands
decided by the impugned order.
4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is
that the assessment order dated 08.12. 2023 itself, in the light of the
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kankanala Ravindra
Reddy vs. Income Tax Officer1, is not sustainable as the notice
under Section 148 was issued by the jurisdictional Assessing
Officer, whereas, as per the amended provision of the Act, that
ought to had been issued in the faceless manner. In the light of the
aforesaid decision, there is all likelihood of the appeal pending
before the Appellate Authority also having the same fate of the
Assessment Order not being maintainable and being set aside.
5. In the light of the subsequent amendments brought in the
Act as also in the light of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & ors., v. Ashish
Agarwal and others 2, the Assessing Authority ought to had
(2023) 156 taxmann.com 178(TELANGANA)
2022 SCC OnLine SC 543
granted interim protection to the Assessee till finalization of the
appeal which the Assessing Authority has not considered.
6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner so
far as the 148 notice issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer
not being in dispute by the learned Standing Counsel for the
Department and also in the light of the aforesaid judgments
rendered by this Court in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy
(supra 1) and in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in case of Ashish Agarwal (supra 2), we are of the
considered opinion that the Assessing Authority in the course of
deciding the petition under Section 220(6) of the Act, ought to
have taken a more pragmatic view and should had kept the
recovery proceedings in abeyance, pending the appeal before the
Appellate Authority.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, we dispose of the present writ
petition at this juncture directing the Assessing Officer not to
pursue with the recovery proceedings in terms of the impugned
order dated 02.12.2024 till the appeal for the assessment year
2018-19 is finally decided.
8. Considering the fact that the appeal was filed in the year
2024, we expect that the Appellate Authority shall take up the
appeal and decide the same as expeditiously as possible. There
shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending if any,
shall stand closed.
__________________
P.SAM KOSHY, J
_________________________________
NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J
20.06.2025
Lrkm
