Mr. K.Suri Babu vs The Income Tax Officer
2026 Latest Caselaw 246 Tel

Telangana High Court

Mr. K.Suri Babu vs The Income Tax Officer on 1 April, 2026

         IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                         AT HYDERABAD

     THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
                              AND
             THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN

               WRIT PETITION No. 9483 of 2026

                        DATED : 01.04.2026
Between:

Mr. K. Suri Babu
                                                    ... Petitioner
                               AND

The Income Tax Officer,
Ward No.11, I.T. Towers,
Hyderabad and nine others
                                                  ... Respondents

ORDER:

Sri Lanka Rajender Prasad, learned counsel appears for

petitioner.

Smt. J. Sunitha, learned Senior Standing Counsel for

Income Tax Department appears for respondent No.1.

Mrs. Bokaro Sapna Reddy, learned Senior Standing

Counsel for Income Tax Department appears for respondent

Nos.2 and 3.

Sri N. Praveen Reddy, learned Senior Standing Counsel

for Income Tax Department appears for respondent Nos.5 and

7. 2 HCJ (AKrS, J) & GMM, J

2. Petitioner, who is the Managing Partner of the firm,

namely, M/s. Ever Shine Constructions, has been representing

before the Department to take action against other partners as

the aforesaid firm is not able to file regular returns. The deed

of partnership is annexed to the instant Writ Petition.

Apparently, the partners are in dispute. The deed of

partnership provides for arbitration clause. However, at the

same time, the Managing Partner of the firm is authorized to

file returns under Section 140(cc) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Apparently, the petitioner has not been filing the returns since

2005-06. The nature of dispute raised by the petitioner in his

representations to the Department is inter se amongst the

partners in respect of which the Department does not have any

statutory obligation to act upon. Therefore, the writ petitioner

does not have any basis to seek issuance of a writ of

Mandamus alleging inaction against respondent Nos.1 to 7, the

official respondents. In case proceedings are issued by the

Department for non-filing of returns or evasion of taxes, it is

for the firm and the partners of the firm to explain. However, 3 HCJ (AKrS, J) & GMM, J

that is not the subject matter of the present Writ Petition.

Therefore, we do not find any basis to entertain this Writ

Petition.

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed as

misconceived. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand

closed.

____________________________ APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ

_____________________ G.M.MOHIUDDIN, J 1st APRIL, 2026.

kvni