Shaik Basheed Vs Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Telangana High Court)
Telangana High Court Declines to Interfere with Income-Tax Recovery Notice and Directs Taxpayer to Cooperate with Proceedings
Background: The petitioner challenged a notice dated 23.09.2026 issued by the Income Tax Department under the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioner contended that he had requested the Department to provide relevant assessment orders, demand computations, recovery records and other documents to enable him to submit an effective response. He also sought additional time and requested that coercive recovery proceedings be kept in abeyance.
Petitioner’s Submissions
The petitioner sought one month’s time to submit a detailed response, copies of relevant departmental records and an opportunity of personal hearing before further adverse action was taken.
High Court’s Observations
The Division Bench observed that the impugned notice itself called upon the petitioner to produce certain information and documents in his possession.
The Court noted that instead of furnishing the required information, the petitioner had sought information from the Department, which appeared to be an attempt to prolong and derail the proceedings.
The Court found no reason to interfere with the notice at that stage, particularly when the petitioner had already been called upon to appear before the authorities on 22.10.2026.
High Court’s Decision
The writ petition was disposed of with a direction that the petitioner appear before the Department on the scheduled date and furnish all relevant documents and information in support of his case.
The Court further directed the authorities to consider the material furnished by the petitioner, as well as the information sought by him through his email dated 10.10.2026, and proceed strictly in accordance with law.
Key Takeaway
The judgment reiterates that taxpayers should cooperate with statutory recovery proceedings and furnish relevant documents when called upon. A request for departmental information does not, by itself, justify interference with a recovery notice when the taxpayer has an opportunity to raise objections before the concerned authority.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Heard Mr. Siripuram Keshava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms.B. Sapna Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4.
2. The present writ petition is filed assailing the notice dated 23.09.2026 issued by respondent No.2 under Second Schedule of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary contention of the petitioner is that the said notice issued, is per se bad in law for the reason that the petitioner, at the first instance, requested the Department to produce certain documents by which he would be in a position to give an effective reply to the notice dated 23.09.2026 issued by the Department.
3. The information sought for by the petitioner is extracted hereunder:
“1. Grant me one month’s time to submit a detailed response and supporting documents.
2. Provide copies of the relevant assessment orders, demand computations, recovery orders and the records forming the basis of the allegations, wherever these have not already been supplied.
3. Consider my earlier representations concerning the disputed filings and my request for an opportunity to correct them.
4. Kindly keep further coercive recovery measures in abeyance, to the extent permissible under law, during the requested period and until my representation has been considered.
5. Grant me a reasonable opportunity of personal hearing before any further adverse action is taken.”
4. The said information sought for by the petitioner was pursuant to the notice dated 23.09.2026, which is under challenge in this writ petition.
5. A plain reading of the contents of the notice dated 23.09.2026 itself go to show that the petitioner has been called upon to produce certain information and documents, which he has in his possession, that which is reflected in the schedule attached to impugned notice. It appears that the petitioner instead of cooperating with the Department in furnishing this information has, on the other hand, sought for certain information in turn from the Department, which in the opinion is nothing but a stand taken by the petitioner to protract the proceedings and also in derailing the proceedings now initiated by the respondents.
6. We did not see any good reason why an inference to the impugned notice is called for at this juncture when the petitioner has been called upon to appear before the authorities on 22.10.2026 by the Department at the given time where the petitioner can appear and submit all the documents and information that he has pursuant to the impugned notice dated 23.09.2026 and thereafter the petitioner can place any objection or information in respect of which the defence before the authorities concerned and in the course of proceeding further, the authorities shall also consider the information that the petitioner shall supply and also the information to which the petitioner does thus requires in terms of the email that he had sent to the Department on 10.10.2026 seeking for those information referred to in the proceedings.
7. Subject to the petitioner appearing before the authorities on the given date and also furnishing all the relevant and material documents and information in support of the proceedings, the authorities are expected to proceed strictly in accordance with law and shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders.
8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
