VIVEK REDDY KALLURI v. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 20 Jan 2026
- Bench
- R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, T C D SEKHAR
Outcome
Set aside
and the impugned orders of assessment are hereby set aside
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 9(1)(g), 14, 226, 265
- Income Tax Act, 1961 ss. 148, 250
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 151
Judgment
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 729/2026 Between:
1. VIVEK REDDY KALLURI, S/O. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY KALLURI AGED 34 YEARS, OCC PRIVATE EMPLOYEE , R/O. 15-5-173A-3, MADANAPALLE, CHITTOOR REDDAPPA NAIDU COLONY, DISTRICT- 517325, ANDHRA PRADESH.
2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, WARD -1, CHITTOOR, INCOME TAX OFFICE, 10-251, GANDHI ROAD, CHITTOOR DISTRICT - 517 001, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3.
3. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, ANDHRA PRADESH AND TELANGANA, HYDERABAD, ROOM NO 922, 9TH FLOOR, B BLOCK, I.T.TOWERS, 10-2-3, AC GUARDS, HYDERABAD - 500 004, TELANGANA. AND ...PETITIONER(S)
ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL ASSESSMENTCENTER, NEW DELHI, ROOM NO 401,2ND FLOOR, E-RAMP, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, NEW DELHI - 110 003. 2.
THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, CHITTOOR, INCOME TAX OFFICE, 10-251, GANDHI ROAD, CHITTOOR DISTRICT - 517 001, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3.
THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ANDHRA PRADESH AND TELANGANA, HYDERABAD, ROOM NO 922, 9TH FLOOR, B BLOCK, I.T.TOWERS, 10-2-3, AC GUARDS, HYDERABAD - 500 004, TELANGANA.
THE JOINT COMMISSIONER APPEALS, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI, THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (NAFAC), DELHI, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110 2 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.729 of 2026
THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, MADANAPALLE, INCOME TAX OFFICE, 2-259, 15-15-9, CTM ROAD, SOCIETY COLONY, MADANAPALLE- 517 325, ANDHRA PRADESH
UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, 3RD FLOOR, JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI - 110 001 ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, declaring that the order passed by the 4th Respondent, dated 06.10.2025, bearinga. DIN Order No ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025- 26/1081478109(1), u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, confirming the Assessment Order dated 11.01.2024, bearing DIN no ITBA/AST/S/147/2023- 24/1059629132(1 ) passed by the 1st Respondent, for the Assessment year 2015-16 the rectification order issued by the 5th Respondent, u/s. 154 r.w.sb. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 20.11.2024, bearing DIN Order No ITBA/REC/S/154_1/2024-25/1071440867(1), rectifying the order of the 1st Respondent, dated 11.01.2024, bearing DIN ITBA/AST/S/147/20 23 24/1 059629132(1), for the Assessment Year 2015-16 as arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, void-ab-initio, barred by limitation, violative of the principles of natural justice, apart from being violative of Articles 14, 9(1)(g) and 265 of the Constitution of India, and consequently set aside the same in the interests of justice and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to stay all further proceedings, including any recovery, pursuant to the notice issued by the 1st Respondent, u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated ITBA/AST/S/148_1/2022- 232/1042602318(1), for the Assessment Year 2015 - 16, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition: and pass
07.04.2022, bearing DIN; Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. A V A SIVA KARTIKEYA Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI 3 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.729 of 2026 The Court made the following Order: The petitioner herein had suffered an order of assessment, dated
11.01.2024, for the assessment year 2015-16. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has moved an appeal, which came to be dismissed on 06.10.2025. The petitioner has now approached this Court, by way of the present Writ Petition contending that the order of assessment as well as the order of appeal would have to be set aside inasmuch as the said process had been undertaken by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer which is impermissible in view of the provisions of Section 151 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, r/w the scheme formulated, by way of a notification, dated 29.03.2022.
2. This issue has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court, in W.P.No.14681 of 2023 & batch. The Division Bench, after considering the said issues, had, by its Judgment, dated 28.10.2025, had set aside the notices on the ground that the said notices are contrary to Section 151 A of the I.T. Act.
Operative part
3. Following the same, this Writ Petition is disposed of, in terms of the Judgment passed in W.P.No.14681 of 2023 & batch, dated 28.10.2025 and the impugned orders of assessment are hereby set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. 4 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.729 of 2026 As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J Date: 20.01.2026 MJA ________________ T.C.D. SEKHAR, J 5 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.729 of 2026 148 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 729/2026 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
20.01.2026 MJA
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: and the impugned orders of assessment are hereby set aside
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 9(1)(g), 14, 226, 265; Income Tax Act, 1961 — ss. 148, 250; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 20 Jan 2026. The bench was R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, T C D SEKHAR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.