M/s..Chidrupi Eqtale-s alg l-_loldlng Limited v. The Deputy C_ommissioner of lncome Tax

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 issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, declaring the order passed by the 1st Respondent, vide DIN and Lefter No.. |TBAiCOMlFllT12024-2511071966512(1), dated 07.01.2025, in directing the Petitioner lo pay 2O of the disputed demand, peMing disposal of the appeal of the Petitioner before the '1st Appellate Authority, i.e., the 4th Respondent herein, for the Assessment Year 2016 -17, as arbitrary, illegal, barred by limitation, bad in law, void-ab-initio, violative of the principles of natural justice, apart from being violative of Article,s t a t 9(1Xg) and 265 of the constitution of lndia ilrd sec 148A of the lncome Ta.< Act. 'l 961, and consequenfly set-aside the same irnd grant stay of recovery, penrling c is;posar of the petitioner's appear before the 1 st Appelrate Authority, in the interestr; of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition unrie' [i:r+ion 1sl cpc praying that in the circurnstarrcas stated in the affidavit filed in ,;urport of the petition, the High court may be pl,,rased to stay all further procee<rings incruding any recovery, pursuant the order par;sed by the 1st Respondenl, vice DrN and Letter No.. rrBA/coru/Fi1 712024- 2511071966512(1 r, dak:ct ot.o1 .2o2s, in directing the petitioner to pzy 2oo/o of the disputed demand, penrling disposal of the appeal of the petitioner betore the 1st Appellate Authority, i.e . the 4th Respondent herein, for the F\ssessment year 2016 - 17, pendirrg dispcsar of the above writ petition, pendinr] rli.posar of the above Writ Petitiorr. Counsel for the Petitio,rer: SRt A.V.A.SIVA KARTIKEYA 99-r!:"] for the Resporrdents: M/s. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY, Jr. S(.) FOR INCOME TAX The Court made the following: ORDER TIIE IIONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY - AND TIIE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKOAIDA w.P.No.9708 oF2025 . ORDER (per Hon'ble Sri Justice p.km Koslry) Heard Sri A.V.A. Siva Kartikeya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Bokaro Sapna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department appearing for the respondents. perused the record.

2. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 07.01.2025 in directing the petitioner to pay 20%o of the disputed demand, nendinl disposal of the appeal before the Appellate Authority for the Assess mentyear 2016_17.

3. The petitioner herein had filed statutory remedy of an appeal under Section 246A ofthe Income Tax Act, 196l (for short, the 'Acr,) before the Appellate Authority along with the Memo of Appear. The petitioner had arso preferred interim protection so far as the recovery proceedings are concerned under Section 220(6) of the Act. It is this efElication which stands 2 decided b1' th,: impugrred order directing the pelitiotler for payment of th,: amounts stated above.

4. Tbe corttention of the leamed counsel for the petiti'rner is that the As,selrsment Order dated 07.01.2025 itself, in the light of the Divisir>n Ilench of this Court in the case of Kan kanala Ravindra Reddy vs. lncome Tax Oflicerr, is not susta]nlble as the noti,;e urtcier Section 148 was issued by the - urisdictional Assessing Of fi oer, whereas, as per the amended pro'risic'n of the Act, that ouqlrt to had been issued in the Faceless rlanner' He further sultrnits that the assessment of the petitione'r th::rnselves carried ,rut irr a similar manner for the subsequenl period was already r;ulrjer:ted to challenge before this Court for tht: Asst:ssment Year 2(ll4-15 vide W.P.No.l2348 of 2023 and the said writ petition str>oc allowed vide order dated 07.1L.202.3' In th',: tight of the afores;rid two decisions, there is all likelihood of the appeal pending br:fbre: the Appellate Authority also having the lrame fate of the ,\ssessrnent Order not being maintainable 6nd 16ring set aside. t 120231 15; tern], n r.com i -1I'EIANGANA) 3

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 others2, the Assessing Authority ought to had granted interim protection to the Assessee till finalization of the appeal which the Assessing Authority has not considered.

6. The contention of the leamed counsel for the petitioner so far as the 148 notice issued-by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer not being in dispute by the reamed Standing counser for the Department and also in the light of the aforesaid judgments rendered by this Court in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy (supra t) 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 ') 2022 sCC OnLine SC 543 \ l i 4

7. For tlLe rfbresaid reasons, we dispose of the preserrt writ petition a- this .iuncture directing the Assessing Officer: rr)t to pursue with thr: recovery proceedings in terms of the imp ur3ned order dated 07 .(;1.2025 till the appeal for the Assessrnen fear 2016-17 is fina I'r decided.

8. CorLsiJerirrg the fact that the appeal was fited i-r th:: year 2023, we e):pecr, that the Appellate Authority shall take 4r the appeal an1 lec irle the same at the eeirliest, preferably, ''^ritlLin a period of ;ir (C6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copv t1'this order. There shrll be no order as to costs. CorLseqr,r:ntly, miscellaneous applications, pendinp; if any, shall stanrl c los:rl. //TRUE COPY// D/- I.. L/\}(SHMI BAB U S p EPUTY REGISTRAR J SECTION OFFICER To

1. The DePtrtY Cc ntmissioner of lncome Tax, Circle 1) Hyd eraltad, lncome Tax Tow<lrs, A C: Guards, Masab Tank, HYderabad-5000 04, R:langana. nt Center, 2. Assessment [J'tit, lncome Tax DePa rtment, Nation al e-Assesst'nr: New Delhi, Ro:rn No. 401, 2nd Floo r, E-RamP, Jawaharlal N()hru Stadium, New Deltri ' 1 10 003.

3. The Prinr;ipal Oommissioner of lncome Tax- - 1 ' " cr;rd'r,"ffiial: rant<, Hyderabad :5-90 0I)4' Telang-ana -m*la:liiis}r*-il'f-t'-.niiitT$I}T[.ri:.[isniilm'#*, lncome Tax Ttirrrers' A C 5 6 7 '1 10 001 in! b"t,rirn,rn, lentral Board of Direct Taxes' Departmerrt of :1r:venue' Ministry,rf =inatrce, couernti""nti?itioialseiretariat Builcing';' New Delhi - 110 001 on"e-Ci to sF I A V.A.slvA KARTIKEYA, Advoqale-[oPUCl - - - - - . - ffi dd i6 il) j 'eoi<Ado snir'in nEorjv, L'' sc FbR rr\cc N E rAX loPUCl Two CD CoPit:s

6. PSK. GJP Fr HIGH COURT DATED:0110412025 ,ORDER WP.No.9708 of 2025 1, _\ ,) ,J ir) t 4 r(- .$( '13 Jt]ll lM z c) * DE.s ,.. 11 3 \:--,- .? * DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSiTS e,5 .dd \o Y{*eo\"'