HIGHCOURTOFANDHRAPRADESH

****

WRITPETITIONNo.841of2026

Between:

KoduruPicheswaraRao

.....PETITIONER

AND

UnionofIndia,Rep.byitsSecretary,

MinistryofFinance,DepartmentofRevenue,

NorthBlock,NewDelhiand6others

.....RESPONDENTS

DATEOFJUDGMENTRESERVED :27.02.2026

DATEOFJUDGMENTPRONOUNCED:18.03.2026

DATEOFJUDGMENTUPLOADED : 18.03.2026

SUBMITTEDFORAPPROVAL:

THEHON'BLESRIJUSTICERAVINATHTILHARI

&

THEHON'BLESRIJUSTICEBALAJIMEDAMALLI

1.WhetherReportersofLocalnewspapersmay

beallowedtoseetheJudgments?

Yes/No

2.Whetherthecopiesofjudgmentmaybe

markedtoLawReporters/Journals

Yes/No

3.WhetherYourLordshipswishtoseethefair

copyoftheJudgment?

Yes/No

_______________________

RAVINATHTILHARI,J

____________________

BALAJIMEDAMALLI,J

RNT,J&BM,J

WPNo.841of2026

2

*THEHON'BLESRIJUSTICERAVINATHTILHARI

&

THEHON'BLESRIJUSTICEBALAJIMEDAMALLI

+WRITPETITIONNo.841of2026

%18.03.2026

Between:

KoduruPicheswaraRao

.....PETITIONER

AND

UnionofIndia,Rep.byitsSecretary,

MinistryofFinance,DepartmentofRevenue,

NorthBlock,NewDelhiand6others

.....RESPONDENTS

!CounselforthePetitioner :SriK.S.Murthy,SeniorCounsel,

AssistedbySriK.GuruRaj

CounselfortheRespondents1to5:SriChallaDhanunjay,Asst.SolicitorGeneral

SriY.N.Vivekananda,StandingCounsel

CounselforrespondentNo.6 :SriPraveenKumarReddy,SCforIncomeTax

CounselforrespondentNo.7 :SriAnupKoushikKaravadi,SCforIncomeTax

<Gist:

>HeadNote:

?CasesReferred:

1.2023SCCOnLineSC1244

2.1994SCC(L&S)31

3.1983SCCOnLineBom163

4.2018SCCOnLineDel10212

5.2024SCCOnLineGau852

6.2022SCCOnLineSC872

7.2017SCCOnLineSC1251

8.(2005)8SCC760

9.AIR1964SC72

10.(1974)4SCC3

11.(2007)9SCC768

12.(2023)20SCC747

RNT,J&BM,J

WPNo.841of2026

3

THEHON’BLESRIJUSTICERAVINATHTILHARI

&

THEHON’BLESRIJUSTICEBALAJIMEDAMALLI

WRITPETITIONNo.841of2026

JUDGMENT:(perHon’bleSriJusticeRaviNathTilhari)

HeardSriK.S.Murthy,learnedSeniorCounsel,assistedbySriK.Guru

Raj,learnedcounselforthepetitionerandSriChallaDhanunjay,learned

AssistantSolicitorGeneralofIndiaandSriY.N.Vivekananda,learnedstanding

counselappearingforrespondentNos.1to5,SriPraveenKumarReddy,

learnedstandingcounselforIncomeTax,appearingforrespondentNo.6and

SriAnupKoushikKaravadi,learnedstandingcounselforIncomeTax,appearing

forrespondentNo.7.

2.ThepresentwritpetitionhasbeenfiledunderArticle226ofthe

ConstitutionofIndia,challengingthesummonstothepetitioner/assesseeunder

Section131(1A)oftheIncomeTaxAct,1961(inshort‘ITAct’),dated

14.11.2025issuedbythe5

th

respondent-theIncomeTaxOfficer(Investigation),

IncomeTaxDepartment,Vijayawada.

3.Bythesaidsummons,thepetitionerhasbeendirectedtogive

evidenceand/ortoproduceeitherpersonallyorthroughanauthorized

representativethebooksofaccountorotherdocumentsasspecifiedinthesaid

summons,whicharereproducedhereinbelow,on18.11.2025andincaseof

intentionalomissiontoattendandgiveevidenceorproducethebooksof

RNT,J&BM,J

WPNo.841of2026

4

accountordocuments,toimposethepenaltyunderSection272A(1)(c)ofthe

ITAct.

“a)Natureofactivityandsourcesforincome.

b)Booksofaccountsfortheperiodfrom01.04.2019totilldate.

c)Statementofallthebankaccountsinyournamefortheperiodfrom

01.04.2019totilldate.

d)Detailsofmovable&immovablepropertiesinyournamealongwith

sourcesforinvestments,

e)Detailsofthefirms/companieswhereinyouareoneofthe

partners/directorsalongwithPAN&Addressoftheentity.”

4.Thepetitionersubmittedresponsedated17.11.2025requestingto

provideclarityonthepoint;(1)Reasonforissuanceofnotice,and(2)Scopeof

Investigation.Underthefirsthead,thepetitioneraskedfortheclarificationfor

identifyingandfurnishingthemostrelevantandpertinentinformationand

underthesecondhead,thepetitionerwantedtoknowthespecificassessment

yearormultipleyearstowhichthesummons/noticerelated,asalsounderthe

specificincomehead,transactionormatterofconcern.Thepetitioneralso

requestedforadditionally15daystimefromthedateofthesaidreply,followed

byanotherreplydated27.11.2025requestingfurther15daystime.The

petitionersubmittedthereplytotheIncomeTaxOfficer(Investigation),dated

27.11.2025andasmentionedtherein,submittingthecopiesofIncomeTax

Returnsfortheperiod01.04.2019to31.03.2025(15attachments).The

petitionerthenreceivedresponsefromtheIncomeTaxOfficer(Investigation)

informingthatthepetitionerdidnotsubmittherequisiteinformation,booksof

accountfortheperiodfromFY2019-20,copyofallthebankaccountsinthe

RNT,J&BM,J

WPNo.841of2026

5

petitioner’snamefrom01.04.2019tothatdate.On02.12.2025thepetitioner

againrequestedtheIncomeTaxOfficer(Investigation)forclarificationwith

respecttothedetailsi.e.,thespecificreasonsforissuanceofthesummons;the

precisescopeofinvestigation,includingtheassessmentyearsandmatters

underexamination;whetheranyparticularformat,structureorclassificationof

informationwasmandatedandthepreferredmodeofsubmission(physical/

digital/anyportal-basedupload),mentioningthatthosedetailswereessential

toensurethattheinformationfurnishedbythepetitionerwascomplete,

relevantandusefulforthepurposeoftheinvestigation.

5.TheIncomeTaxOfficer(Investigation),inresponse,sentreplydated

16.12.2025,andclarifiedthatthesummonswereissuedbytheInvestigating

OfficerinexerciseofpowersconferredunderSection131(1A)oftheITActfor

thepurposeofinquiry/investigationintothemattersrelatingtopossibletax

evasionandthatthesaidprovisionconferredtostatutoryauthority,uponthe

investigationwing,tocallforinformationandenforceattendanceduringthe

courseofinvestigation.

6.TheIncomeTaxOfficer(Investigation)furtherclarifiedthatthedetails

ofreasons,sourceofinformation,lineofinquiryandscopeofongoing

investigationwereconfidentialinnatureandwerenotrequiredtobedisclosed

totheassesseeoranyotherpersonwhiletheinvestigationwasinprogress.

EvenundertheRighttoInformationAct,videSection8(1)(h)the

InvestigationDirectorateofIncomeTaxwasexemptedtodiscloseany

informationrelatingtoongoinginvestigationandthedisclosureofanysuch

RNT,J&BM,J

WPNo.841of2026

6

informationatthatstagewoulddefeattheverypurposeofinvestigationand

mightprejudicetheproceedings.Itwasfurtherclarifiedthatthescope,

methodologyandsourceofinvestigationfellexclusivelywithinthedomainof

theinvestigationDirectorateandweregovernedbyinternalproceduresand

confidentialitynorms.Theassesseewaslegallyboundtocomplywiththe

summonsbyfurnishingtheinformation/documentsandbyattendingas

directed.Bythesaidreplydated16.12.2025,thepetitioner/assesseewas

againrequestedtocomplywiththesummonsunderSection131(1A)oftheIT

Actandsubmittherequisiteinformationeitherinphysicalformorthrough

electronicmode.Itwasreiteratedthatnon-complianceshouldattractpenal

consequencesundertherelevantprovisionsoftheITAct.

7.The4

th

respondent-DeputyCommissionerofIncomeTaxhasfiledthe

counteraffidavitandhasdeniedtheallegationsagainsthimthathethreatened

thepetitioner’sstatutoryauditortosettlethedisputes.Hehassubmittedthat

the4

th

respondenthasnoroletoplayinissuanceofsummons.Hehasalso

submittedthatthe4

th

respondentisajurisdictionalassessingofficerandis

nowherelinkedtotheinvestigationDirectorate.Theinvestigationbeingtaken

upbythe5

th

respondentisindependentandconfidentialandthe4

th

respondent

isnotinapositioneithertohaveanyknowledgeofthepetitionorthelineof

investigationbeingcarriedout.Hehasabsolutelynoroletoplay.

8.The6

th

respondent,impleadedbynamei.e.,3

rd

respondentby

designation,thePrincipalChiefCommissionerofIncomeTax),hasfiledcounter

affidavit.Hehasnotdisputedtherelationshipthatthe1

st

defendantinthesuit

RNT,J&BM,J

WPNo.841of2026

7

O.S.No.608of2025isthebrotherofhisdaughter’sfather-in-law,buthas

submittedthatheisnotawareofanycivillitigation.Heisalsonotawareabout

thenoticesissuedtothepetitionerandhasdeniedtheotherallegationsmade

againsthimbythepetitioner.Hehasspecifiedthathehasnoroletoplayin

theproceedingsinitiatedagainstthepetitionerandthatthe6

th

respondenthas

unnecessarilydraggedhimintothematterjusttoscuttletheprocessinitiated

bytheofficialrespondentsundertheIncomeTaxAct.

9.The5

th

respondent-IncomeTaxOfficer(Investigation),also

impleadedbyname,as7

th

respondent,hasfiledhiscounteraffidavits.Interalia

ithasbeensubmittedthatthepleadingsofthewritpetitiondonotdiscloseany

personalact,excessofjurisdiction,abuseofauthorityorconductbeyondthe

scopeofstatutorypowersthatwouldjustifytheimpleadmentofhisname.The

allegationsagainstthe7

th

respondentcannotbesustainedintheabsenceof

anyfoundationalfacts.Heproceededasperthestandardoperatingprocedure,

TEPwasassignedtohimbythecompetentauthorityandthesummonwas

issuedtoconducttheenquiriesafterobtainingthepermissiontoissue

summons.Healsodeposedthatthepetitionersubmittedcopyof

acknowledgmentofIncomeTaxReturnsforFY2019-20to2024-25viae-mail

dated27.11.2025andthesameweredulyrecorded.Hesubmittedthatrequest

oftheinvestigatingofficerforsubmissionofthedocumentsispartofenquiryas

itpertainstotheverificationofdeclaredincomeagainsttheassets,withinthe

scopeofSection131(1A)ofITActandso,theallegationofmisuseofstatutory

powers,thearbitrarinessinissuanceofthesummonsisbaseless.The7

th

RNT,J&BM,J

WPNo.841of2026

8

respondentsubmittedthathewasnotawareofregardinganypropertydispute

betweenthepetitionerandthedefendantsinthesuitandanysuchdisputehas

norelevanceorconnectionfortheissuanceofsummonswhichwereissuedas

pertheprocedureundertheIncomeTaxAct.

10.Thepetitionerfiledrepliestothecountersoftherespondents4,5,6

&7,reiteratingthecontentsofthewritpetition.

11.Thechallengetothesummons/noticeunderSection131(1A)of

theIncomeTaxActdated14.11.2025ismainlyonthegroundofmalafide.

12.SriK.S.Murthy,learnedseniorcounsel,advancedthearguments

beforeusthatoneO.S.No.608of2025arisingoutofthedisputerelatingtothe

propertysituatedatVijayawadaispendingintheCourtofthePrincipalCivil

Judge(JuniorDivision),VijayawadaandinthesaidsuitinI.A.No.286of2025

filedunderOrder39Rules1&2CPC,thelearnedtrialCourthasgrantedad

interimtemporaryinjunctionon22.04.2025restrainingthedefendantsinthe

suit,theirmenetc.,frominterferingwiththepeacefulpossessionanduseof

theschedulepremisesi.e.,thepetitionscheduleproperty,exceptbydue

processoflaw,whiledirectingtheplaintiffsthereintocomplywiththe

provisionsofOrder39Rule3AofCPC.

13.HisfurtherargumentisthatthedefendantsinO.S.No.608of2025,

namely,AtluriVenkataSatyaVaraPrasadandAtluriDyhanarecloserelativesof

thepresent3

rd

respondent-thePrincipalChiefCommissionerofIncomeTax,

AndhraPradeshTelangana,Hyderabad,aSeniorOfficerintheIncomeTax

Department.Therelationshipwiththe1

st

defendantinthesuitSatyaVara

RNT,J&BM,J

WPNo.841of2026

9

Prasad,statedisthat,the1

st

defendant’sbrother’ssonismarriedtothe

daughterofthe3

rd

respondent.The3

rd

respondentisalsoimpleadedinthe

writpetitionbynameas6

th

respondent.

14.Thepetitioner’sfurthercaseasalsotheargumentoflearnedcounsel

forthepetitioneristhatthe4

th

respondent,theDeputyCommissionerof

IncomeTax(Circle-I),actinginconcertwiththeprivateparties,contactedthe

petitioner’sstatutoryauditoronmultipleoccasionstoprevailuponthe

petitionertosettlethecivildispute,andifthedisputewasnotsettled,the

petitionerwouldbesubjectedtoseriousconsequencesthroughtheIncomeTax

Department.Thepetitioner’sauditorinformedthepetitionerthesame.The

allegationisthattherespondentsmisusingtheirofficialcapacityaretryingto

gainundueadvantageoverthepetitionerbyissuanceofsummons/noticeunder

Section131(1A)oftheITActinviewofO.S.No.608of2025tosettlethe

matter.

15.SriK.S.Murthy,learnedSeniorCounselforthepetitionerduring

argumentsalsoraisedthepointoflackofjurisdictionintheauthorityinissuing

theimpugnedsummons.Inthisregard,hesubmittedthattheIncomeTax

Officer(Investigation)isnotcompetentauthoritytoissuethesummonsunder

Section131(1A)ofITAct,asheisnottheauthorizedofficer.

16.Ontheaforesaidgrounds,learnedcounselforthepetitioner

submittedthatthesummonsdeservedtobequashedandnoproceedings

pursuanttheretocouldbecarriedforwardanyfurther.Hesubmittedthatthe

RNT,J&BM,J

WPNo.841of2026

10

issuanceofthesummonsisvitiatedforcolorableexerciseofpowerbythe

statutoryauthorities.

17.SriK.S.Murthy,learnedseniorcounselplacedrelianceinthe

followingjudgments:

1)PankajBansalv.UnionofIndia

1

2)NaseemBano(Smt)v.StateofU.P

2

3)IshverlalJ.Naikv.SriS.C.Arya

3

4)SkyviewConsultantsPvt.Ltd.v.IncomeTaxOfficerWard

23(4),NewDelhi

4

5)PawanKumarGargv.UnionofIndia

5

18.SriChallaDhanunjay,learnedAssistantSolicitorGeneralsubmitted

thattherespondentshavefiledcounteraffidavitandinparagraph–4ofthe

counteraffidavitofthe5

th

respondent,ithasclearlybeenmentionedthatan

anonymousTaxEvasionPetition(TEP)againstthepetitnioerandhisfamily

memberswasreceivedintheofficeofthePrincipalDirectorofIncomeTax

(Investigation),Hyderabadon12.11.2025andaspertheStandardOperating

Procedure(SOP)inF.No.RNo.291/21/2013-Dir(Inv.IV)/1193dated23.09.2016,

aUniqueIdentificationNumber(UIN)wasallottedbythePrincipalDirectorof

IncomeTax(Investigation)formanagementofTaxEvasionPetitionsunderthe

IncomeTaxBusinessApplications(ITBA)issuedbytheCentralBoardofDirect

1

2023SCCOnLineSC1244

2

1994SCC(L&S)31

3

1983SCCOnLineBom163

4

2018SCCOnLineDel10212

5

2024SCCOnLineGau852

RNT,J&BM,J

WPNo.841of2026

11

Taxes,aUniqueIdentificationNumberwasallottedtotheTEPbyuploadingthe

sameintothependingonlineworklistonITBA(IncomeTaxBusiness

Application)moduleofIncomeTaxDepartment.Subsequently,thesaidTEP

wasassignedonlinetotheconcernedjurisdictionalInvestigationUnitHead,i.e.,

theJointDirectorofIncomeTax(Investigation),Unit-IV,Vijayawadawhoin

turnhadassignedthesametotheIncomeTaxOfficer(Investigation),Unit-IV,

VijayawadaonlinethroughITBAmoduleoftheDepartmentforconducting

necessaryenquiriesandforsubmissionofreport.Hesubmittedthatsoonafter

onlineallotmentoftheTEPinthependingworklistofIncomeTaxOfficer

(Investigation),Unit-IV,Vijayawada,theInvestigatingOfficer(IO)aftertaking

necessaryduediligence,obtainedpermissiontoissuesummonsunderSection

131(1A)ofITActfromtheunitheadon14.11.2025andaccordinglyissued

summonsunderSection131(1A),toalltheconcernedpersons.Hesubmitted

thatthesummonsissuedhadclearlyspecifiedtherequirementforproduction

ofbooksofaccount,bankstatements,anddetailsofproperties/investments

from01.04.2019onwards,proportionatetothescopeofinquiryasverification

ofescapementofincomefromAY2020-21toAY2025-26aspertheprovisions

oftheIncomeTaxAct.Hesubmittedthatthedisclosureofdetailedreasonsat

thesummonsstagewasnotmandatedbylaworbytheprocedurelaiddownby

theSOP.

19.SriChallaDhanunjay,learnedAssistantSolicitorGeneral,submitted

thatsofarastheobjectionwithrespecttothejurisdictionoftheIncomeTax

Officer(Investigation)isconcerned,thatheisnotauthorizedofficertoissue

RNT,J&BM,J

WPNo.841of2026

12

summonsunderSection131(1A)ofITAct,anysuchobjectionwasnevertaken

inthepetitioner’sreplydated17.11.2025,27.11.2025and02.12.2025.He

furthersubmittedthatanysuchobjectionhasalsonotbeentakeninthewrit

petition.Thechallengeasperthecontentsinthewritpetitionisnotonthe

groundofallegedwantofjurisdictionintheauthoritytoissuethesummonsbut

ithasbeenorallyarguedthatheisnotauthorizedunderSection131(1A)ofIT

Act,forthefirsttimeduringarguments,thoughtheprocedurewasfollowedin

issuingthesummons.

20.SriChallaDhanunjay,learnedAssistantSolicitorGeneral,further

submittedthattheplaceofmalafideandcolourableexerciseofpowerif

unsustainableandisnotestablished.Thesameisbeingraisedwithoutany

factualfoundationandforthefirsttimeinthewritpetitionwithoutmakingany

suchavermentinthepetitioner’sreplysubmittedbeforetheIncomeTax

Authorities.Thesameisafterthoughtandonlyforthepurposesofthepresent

writpetition.

21.SriY.N.VivekanandaandSriPraveenKumarReddy,learned

standingcounselsfortheIncomeTaxhaveadoptedthesubmissionsadvanced

bythelearnedAdditionalSolicitorGeneral.

22.Learnedcounselfortherespondentsplacedrelianceinthefollowing

judgments:

1)PrincipalDirectorofIncomeTax(Investigation)v.Laljibhai

KanjibhaiMandalia

6

.

6

2022SCCOnLineSC872

RNT,J&BM,J

WPNo.841of2026

13

2)N.K.Jewellersv.CommissionerofIncomeTax,NewDelhi

7

.

23.Wehaveconsideredtheaforesaidsubmissionsandperusedthe

materialonrecordandgonethroughtherelevantprovisionsoftheIncomeTax

Actandthejudgmentscitedfromboththesides.

24.Sofarasthesubmissionofmalafideisconcerned,weareofthe

viewfromthematerialonrecord,andthereisnodisputeonthefactualaspect

thatinO.S.No.608of2025,noneofthepresentrespondentsarepartyinthe

suit,neitherbydesignationnorbyname.Eventhepresentpetitionerisnota

party,whichissaidtohavebeenfiledbytheson-in-lawofthepetitioner.

Further,anysuchavermentofmalafideorwithrespecttothesuit,wasnot

eventakenintheresponsesfiledbythepetitionertothenotice/summons.The

saidpleaisbeingraisedforthefirsttimeinthewritpetition.Thoughthe

learnedcounselforthepetitionerlaidmuchemphasisonthestatementofthe

petitioner’sCharteredAccountant,annexedtothewritpetition(Annexure

No.P8),butthesaidallegedstatement/affidavititselfisdated27.11.2025i.e.,

muchafterthedateofnoticeunderSection131(1A).Theaffidavitofthe

CharteredAccountant(P8)isanotarizedaffidavitandisnotaddressedtoany

one.Itisnotevidentfromthepleadingsofthewritpetition,inwhat

proceedingsthesamewasfiledorbeforewhichauthority.LearnedAssistant

SolicitorGeneralsubmittedthatthepersonnamedinthesaidaffidavitisnot

theIncomeTaxOfficer(Investigation),andthatthecontentsthereofareonly

afterthoughtandhadbeencreatedonlyforthepurposesofthepresentwrit

7

2017SCCOnLineSC1251

RNT,J&BM,J

WPNo.841of2026

14

petitionsoastochallengethesummons/noticeandinanefforttomakeouta

pleaofmalafide.LearnedAssistantSolicitorGeneralsubmittedthatMr.Prem

Kumarasmentionedinthesaidaffidavitisnotapartyinthewritpetitionnorin

thesuit.Further,thereisnomentionofsuchaffidavitortheallegedincidentin

thepetitioner’sreplyfiledbeforetheincometaxauthorities.Withrespectto

thepetitioner’sletterraisingthegrievanceaspertheaffidavitofpetitioner’s

CharteredAccountantagainsttheDeputyCommissionerofIncomeTaxtothe

ChairpersonofCentralBoardofDirectTaxes,NewDelhi,thematerialfiledwith

thewritpetitionshowsthatthesaidletterwassentthroughregisteredposton

01.12.2025butinthereplysubmittedbythepetitioneron02.12.2025before

theIncomeTaxOfficer(Investigation)thereisnomentionofeventheletter

senttotheChairpersonofCentralBoardofDirectTaxes.Further,the

summons/noticeisdated14.11.2025andtheTEPisdated12.11.2025

whereastheadinterimtemporaryinjunctionwasgrantedinthesuiton

22.04.2025.Sothenoticehasbeenissuedaftermanymonthsofthesuitand

theinterimorder,whichhasneitheranyproximitynoranyconnectiontothe

suitproceedings.Weareoftheviewthatthereisforceinthesubmissionof

thelearnedAssistantSolicitorGeneralandtheargument/pleaofthelearned

counselforthepetitionerofmalafidehasnolegstostand,basedonthe

materialannexedwiththewritpetition.

25.Asperthecounteraffidavitoftherespondentstheactionhasbeen

takenaspertheprocedureonreceiptofanonymousTaxEvasionPetition(TEP)

againstthepetitioner.Itwasreceivedon12.11.2025.Atthisstage,wemay

RNT,J&BM,J

WPNo.841of2026

15

mentionthatinthecounter,the5

th

respondentmentionedaboutTEPandthe

SOP.Butdidnotannexthecopythereof.ThepetitionerfiledI.A.No.3of2026

todirecttherespondentauthoritiestoproducethedocumentsi.e.,anonymous

TaxEvasionPetition(TEP)andtheStandardOperatingProcedure(SOP).The

learnedAssistantSolicitorGeneralsubmittedthatthemattermaybeheardand

duringthecourseofarguments,ifsorequiredbytheCourtthosedocuments

shallbeplacedbeforetheCourt,ashehasgottherecord.Duringcourseof

arguments,theanonymousTEPwasplacedbeforeuswhichisdated

12.11.2025(withitsEnglishtranslation)forperusal.Wesatisfiedourselves

thatthereisacomplaintagainstthepetitioner,anonymousTEP,basedupon

whichtheproceedingsunderIncomeTaxActhavebeeninitiated,andthough

thecopyoftheTEPhasnotbeenannexedwiththecounteraffidavit,the

contentsofthecounteraffidavitregardingtheTEParesupportedfromthe

record,soplaced.TheaforesaidfactwasalsorecordedintheOrderdated

27.02.2026onwhichdatethejudgmentwasreservedinthepresentwrit

petition.

26.InUnionofIndiav.AshokKumar

8

theHon’bleApexCourt

observedandheldthathewhoseekstoinvalidateornullifyanyactororder

mustestablishthechargeofbadfaith,anabuseoramisusebytheauthorityof

itspowers.Theindirectmotiveorpurpose,orbadfaithorpersonalillwillis

nottobeheldestablishedexceptonclearproofthereof.TheHon’bleApex

Courtfurtherobservedthatitisnotthelawthatmalafidesinthesenseof

8

(2005)8SCC760

RNT,J&BM,J

WPNo.841of2026

16

impropermotiveshouldbeestablishedonlybydirectevidence.Butitmustbe

discerniblefromtheorderimpugnedormustbeshownfromtheestablished

surroundingfactorswhichprecededtheorder.TheHon’bleApexCourtreferred

tothejudgmentinthecaseofS.PratapSinghv.StateofPunjab

9

to

reiteratethattheburdenofestablishingmalafidesisveryheavyontheperson

whoallegesit.Theallegationsofmalafidesareoftenmoreeasilymadethan

proved,andtheveryseriousnessofsuchallegationsdemandsproofofahigh

orderofcredibility.AgainreferringtoitsjudgmentinE.P.Royappav.State

ofT.N.

10

theHon’bleApexCourtobservedthatthecourtswouldbeslowto

drawdubiousinferencesfromincompletefactsplacedbeforethembyaparty,

particularlywhentheimputationsaregraveandtheyaremadeagainstthe

holderofanofficewhichhasahighresponsibilityintheadministration.

27.Paragraphs21and22ofAshokKumar(supra)arereproducedas

under:

“21.Doubtless,hewhoseekstoinvalidateornullifyanyactorordermust

establishthechargeofbadfaith,anabuseoramisusebytheauthorityofits

powers.Whiletheindirectmotiveorpurpose,orbadfaithorpersonalillwillis

nottobeheldestablishedexceptonclearproofthereof,itisobviouslydifficult

toestablishthestateofaman'smind,forthatiswhattheemployeehasto

establishinthiscase,thoughthismaysometimesbedone.Thedifficultyisnot

lessenedwhenonehastoestablishthatapersonapparentlyactingonthe

legitimateexerciseofpowerhas,infact,beenactingmalafideinthesenseof

pursuinganillegitimateaim.Itisnotthelawthatmalafidesinthesenseof

impropermotiveshouldbeestablishedonlybydirectevidence.Butitmustbe

discerniblefromtheorderimpugnedormustbeshownfromtheestablished

9

AIR1964SC72

10

(1974)4SCC3

RNT,J&BM,J

WPNo.841of2026

17

surroundingfactorswhichprecededtheorder.Ifbadfaithwouldvitiatethe

order,thesamecan,inouropinion,bededucedasareasonableandinescapable

inferencefromprovedfacts.(S.PratapSinghv.StateofPunjab[(1964)4SCR

733:AIR1964SC72].)Itcannotbeoverlookedthattheburdenof

establishingmalafidesisveryheavyonthepersonwhoallegesit.The

allegationsofmalafidesareoftenmoreeasilymadethanproved,andthe

veryseriousnessofsuchallegationsdemandsproofofahighorderof

credibility.AsnotedbythisCourtinE.P.Royappav.StateofT.N.[(1974)4

SCC3:1974SCC(L&S)165:AIR1974SC555]courtswouldbeslowto

drawdubiousinferencesfromincompletefactsplacedbeforethembya

party,particularlywhentheimputationsaregraveandtheyaremade

againsttheholderofanofficewhichhasahighresponsibilityinthe

administration.(SeeIndianRly.ConstructionCo.Ltd.v.AjayKumar[(2003)

4SCC579:2003SCC(L&S)528].)

22.AsobservedbythisCourtinGulamMustafav.Stateof

Maharashtra[(1976)1SCC800]malafidesisthelastrefugeofalosing

litigant.”

28.InHMTLtd.andanotherv.Mudappa

11

thequestionwaswhether

theactionoftheStateauthoritiesininitiatingacquisitionproceedingsundera

validlawcouldbesaidtobeillegal,unlawfulorinmalafideexerciseofpower?

TheretheHighCourthadheldthatthecourseadoptedbytheauthoritieswas

contrarytolaw.TheHon’bleApexCourtnotedthatitwasreflectedinthe

approachoftheHighCourtthat“itwasacaseofexploitationofstatutory

provisionsinthenameofpublicpurposetodefeatjustrightsofanindividual

whohadobtaineddecreeinhisfavour”.TheHon’bleApexCourtobservedthat

suchanapproachwasneitherlegalnorpermissible.

29.Paragraphs18and19ofMudappa(supra)readasunder:

11

(2007)9SCC768

RNT,J&BM,J

WPNo.841of2026

18

“18.Thequestion,however,iswhethertheactionoftheStateauthoritiesin

initiatingacquisitionproceedingsunderavalidlawcouldbesaidtobeillegal,

unlawfulorinmalafideexerciseofpower?SofarastheHighCourtis

concerned,itheldthatthecourseadoptedbytheauthoritieswascontrarytolaw.

ItisreflectedintheapproachoftheCourtwhereinthelearnedSingleJudge

observedthatitwasacaseofexploitationofstatutoryprovisionsinthenameof

publicpurposetodefeatjustrightsofanindividualwhohadobtaineddecreein

hisfavour.

19.Inourconsideredview,however,thisapproachisneitherlegalnor

permissible.Passingofadecreebyacompetentcourtisonethingand

exerciseofstatutorypowerbytheauthorityisaltogetheradifferentthing.

Itispossibleinagivencasetocometoaconclusiononthebasisofevidence

producedandmaterialsplacedonrecordtoconcludethattheactionhas

beentakenmalafideorforacollateralpurposeorincolourableexerciseof

power.But,inouropinion,issuanceofpreliminarynotificationaftera

decreebyacourtoflawwouldnotipsofactomakeitvulnerableand

exerciseofpowermalafide.Tous,therefore,theauthoritieswererightin

raisingapreliminaryobjectionthatthepetitionwasprematureasbyissuanceof

notificationundersub-section(1)ofSection28oftheAct,anintentionwas

declaredbytheStatetoacquirethelandforpublicpurposei.e.fordeveloping

industry.”

30.InMudappa(supra),theHon’bleApexCourtobservedandheldthat

theHighCourtwasnotrightincomingtotheconclusionthatsinceadecree

waspassedbyacompetentcourt,nonotificationundertheActcouldhave

beenissuedbytheState.ThepowerexercisedbytheStatewasstatutoryin

natureandirrespectiveofadecreeinfavouroftheowners,suchnotification

couldbeissued.TheHon’bleApexCourtreferringtoitspreviousjudgments

explainedtheconceptoflegalmalafideandobservedthat‘legalmalice’or

RNT,J&BM,J

WPNo.841of2026

19

‘maliceinlaw’meanssomethingdonewithoutlawfulexcuse.Inthecontexton

factsofthesaidcasewherenotificationwasissuedbytheStateundertheLand

AcquisitionAct,afterthedecreeinfavourofthelandowners,theHon’bleApex

CourtobservedthatwheremalicewasattributedtotheState,itcouldnotbea

caseofmaliceinfact,orpersonalill-willorspiteonthepartoftheState.It

couldonlybemaliceinlaw,i.e.legalmalafide.TheState,ifitwishesto

acquireland,couldexerciseitspowerbonafideforstatutorypurposeandfor

noneother.Itwasonlybecauseofthedecreepassedinfavouroftheowner

thattheproceedingsforacquisitionwerenecessaryandhence,notificationwas

issued.Suchanactioncouldnotbeheldmalafide.

31.Paragraphs22and24ofMudappa(supra)readasunder:

“22.TheHighCourtwasalsonotrightincomingtotheconclusionthat

sinceadecreewaspassedbyacompetentcourt,nonotificationundertheAct

couldhavebeenissuedbytheState.ThepowerexercisedbytheStatewas

statutoryinnatureandirrespectiveofadecreeinfavouroftheowners,such

notificationcouldbeissued.Asituationsimilartoonebeforeushadarisen

inStateofA.P.v.GoverdhanlalPitti[(2003)4SCC739].

InGoverdhanlal[(2003)4SCC739],aschoolbuildingbelongingtoGwasin

thepossessionoftheStateasatenant.Anorderofevictionwaspassedandthe

StatewasdirectedtohandoverpossessionofpropertytoGwithinaparticular

period.TheStatethentookoutproceedingsundertheLandAcquisitionAct,

1894foracquiringthepropertyforpublicpurpose,namely,fora

school.Gchallengedtheproceedingsasmalafide.TheHighCourtupheldthe

contentionobservingthattherewas“maliceinlaw”inasmuchasthe

proceedingswereinitiatedtoscuttleavaliddecreepassedbyacompetentcourt.

TheStateapproachedthisCourt.

RNT,J&BM,J

WPNo.841of2026

20

24.TheCourtalsoexplainedtheconceptoflegalmalafide.Byreferring

toWordsandPhrasesLegallyDefined,3rdEdn.,LondonButterworths,1989

theCourtstated:(Goverdhanlalcase[(2003)4SCC739],SCCp.744,para12)

“12.Thelegalmeaningofmaliceis‘illwillorspitetowardsapartyandany

indirectorimpropermotiveintakinganaction’.Thisissometimesdescribedas

‘maliceinfact’.‘Legalmalice’or‘maliceinlaw’means‘somethingdone

withoutlawfulexcuse’.Inotherwords,‘itisanactdonewrongfullyand

wilfullywithoutreasonableorprobablecause,andnotnecessarilyanactdone

fromillfeelingandspite.Itisadeliberateactindisregardoftherightsof

others.’”

ItwasobservedthatwheremalicewasattributedtotheState,itcouldnot

beacaseofmaliceinfact,orpersonalill-willorspiteonthepartofthe

State.Itcouldonlybemaliceinlawi.e.legalmalafide.TheState,ifit

wishestoacquireland,couldexerciseitspowerbonafideforstatutory

purposeandfornoneother.Itwasobservedthatitwasonlybecauseofthe

decreepassedinfavouroftheownerthattheproceedingsforacquisitionwere

necessaryandhence,notificationwasissued.Suchanactioncouldnotbe

heldmalafide.”

32.Recently,inStateofRajasthanv.SharwanKumarKumawat

12

onthepointoflegalmalicetheHon’bleApexCourtheldthatthebasisofa

judgmentcanberemovedandthatadecisionoftheCourtcannotbetreated

likeastatute,particularly,whenpowerisavailabletoactanditisaccordingly

exercisedinpublicinterest,andinviewthereof,therewasnolegalmalicein

theamendmentsmadeinthestatute.

33.ParagraphNo.21ofSharwanKumarKumawat(supra)readsas

under:

12

(2023)20SCC747

RNT,J&BM,J

WPNo.841of2026

21

“21.Thoughitiscontendedbythelearnedadvocatesappearingforthe

respondentsthattheimpugnedRuleshavebeenbroughtforthonlytonullifythe

effectofthejudgments,asdiscussed,wedonotthinkso.Theappellantshave

dulycompliedwiththeorderspassed.Evenotherwise,lawisquitesettledthat

basisofajudgmentcanberemovedandadecisionofthecourtcannotbe

treatedlikeastatute,particularlywhenpowerisavailabletoactanditis

accordinglyexercisedinpublicinterest.Insuchviewofthematter,wedo

notfindanylegalmaliceintheamendments.WewishtoquoteKalabharati

Advertisingv.HemantVimalnathNarichania[Kalabharati

Advertisingv.HemantVimalnathNarichania,(2010)9SCC437:(2010)3

SCC(Civ)808]:(SCCpp.448-49,para25)…….

“Legalmalice

25.TheStateisunderobligationtoactfairlywithoutillwillormalice—in

factorinlaw.“Legalmalice”or“maliceinlaw”meanssomethingdone

withoutlawfulexcuse.Itisanactdonewrongfullyandwilfullywithout

reasonableorprobablecause,andnotnecessarilyanactdonefromillfeeling

andspite.Itisadeliberateactindisregardtotherightsofothers.Wheremalice

isattributedtotheState,itcanneverbeacaseofpersonalillwillorspiteonthe

partoftheState.Itisanactwhichistakenwithanobliqueorindirectobject.It

meansexerciseofstatutorypowerfor‘purposesforeigntothoseforwhichitis

inlawintended’.Itmeansconsciousviolationofthelawtotheprejudiceof

another,adepravedinclinationonthepartoftheauthoritytodisregardthe

rightsofothers,whichintentismanifestedbyitsinjuriousacts.(VideADM,

Jabalpurv.ShivakantShukla[ADM,Jabalpurv.ShivakantShukla,(1976)2

SCC521];S.R.Venkataramanv.UnionofIndia[S.R.Venkataramanv.Union

ofIndia,(1979)2SCC491:1979SCC(L&S)216];Stateof

A.P.v.GoverdhanlalPitti[StateofA.P.v.GoverdhanlalPitti,(2003)4SCC

739];BPLLtd.v.S.P.Gururaja[BPLLtd.v.S.P.Gururaja,(2003)8SCC567]

andW.B.SEBv.DilipKumarRay[W.B.SEBv.DilipKumarRay,(2007)14

SCC568:(2009)1SCC(L&S)860].)”

RNT,J&BM,J

WPNo.841of2026

22

TheschemeofSection28isthussimilartotheschemeofacquisitionofland

undertheLandAcquisitionAct,1894underwhichsuchpreliminary

notificationisissued,opportunityofbeingheardisaffordedtothepersons

interestedinthelandandonlythereafterfinalnotificationcanbeissued.Atthe

stageofraisingobjectionsagainstacquisition,itisopentotherespondents

hereintoraiseallcontentions.Inspiteofsuchobjections,iffinalnotificationis

issuedbytheState,itisopentothemtotakeappropriateproceedingsorto

invokejurisdictionoftheHighCourtunderArticle226oftheConstitution.

Unfortunately,however,theHighCourtentertainedthepetitionandquashed

thepreliminarynotificationoverrulingwell-foundedobjectionasto

maintainabilityofpetitionraisedbytheStateandtheappellantsherein.”

34.Inviewoftheaforesaidjudgmentsandtheprinciplessettledonthe

pointoflegalmalice,malafideweareoftheviewthattheauthorityi.e.,

IncomeTaxOfficer(Investigation)issuedsummons/noticesintheexerciseof

powerunderSection131(1A)oftheIncomeTaxAct.Suchexerciseis

statutory.Thefactsaspleaded,forthereasons(supra),thatthepresent

respondentsimpleadedbynameasalsobydesignationarenotpartyinthesuit

northepetitionerispartyinthesuit,theinteriminjunctionwaspassedin

March2025,theTaxEvasionPetitionwasfiledon12.11.2025,onwhichthe

statutoryauthoritiesprecededundertheSOPandissuedthenoticeon

14.11.2025,merelybecausetherespondentNo.3–ThePrincipalChief

CommissionerofIncomeTax,Hyderabadisremotelyrelatedtothedefendants

1and2inthesuitandmerelybecausesuchrelationshiphasbeenadmitted,it

doesnotfollowthattherewasmaliceinfact,withrespondentstoinitiate

proceedingsunderSection13(1A)ofIncomeTaxActagainstthepetitioner.

The‘maliceinfact’inourview,couldnotbeestablished.Thebasistopleadthe

RNT,J&BM,J

WPNo.841of2026

23

maliceespeciallywastheaffidavitoftheCharteredAccountant(P8)whichitself

hasbeenintroducedaftertheissuanceofthenotice/summonsunderSection

131(1A)oftheIncomeTaxActandfurtherthat,thesaidfactofthependency

ofthesuitandmaliceinfact,thereonwasnottakeninthereplyfiledbythe

petitionerbeforetheauthoritiespursuanttothesummons/notice.Thesaid

pleaofmaliceisanafterthoughtbeingraisedforthefirsttimeinthewrit

petitionandisunestablished.So,maliceinfactisnotproved.

35.TheauthoritieshaveactedonreceiptofTaxEvasionPetitionandas

perthecounterofrespondentNo.5theprocedurewasfollowedi.e.,allotting

theUniqueIdentificationNumberandreferringthemattertothecompetent

authoritiesandtheIncomeTaxOfficer(Investigation)issuedthesummons

afterseekingapprovalofthecompetentauthority.Theauthorities,whenare

actingundertheIncomeTaxActandbasedonthematerialintheformofTax

EvasionPetitionreceived,thereisnoquestionofmaliceinlawaswellorofany

colourableexerciseofpowerbytheIncomeTaxauthorities.

36.Further,weareoftheviewthatifsuchapleaisaccepted,whichis

notworthacceptance,thennoproceedingcanbedrawnundertheIncomeTax

Actagainstthepetitioner,asthesuitisthefirststageandthemattermaygo

onforyearsfromthesuitstagetofurtherstagesbeforethenexthigherCourts.

Inthemeantimetheperiodoflimitationprescribedforinvokingtheproceedings

underIncomeTaxActmayalsocometoanend.Noassesseeifliableunder

theIncomeTaxActcanbepermittedtoescapethestatutoryprovisionsbeing

invokedonsuchunfoundedpleaofmalice/malafide.

RNT,J&BM,J

WPNo.841of2026

24

37.PankajBansal(supra)isonthepointofcolourableexerciseof

powerormalafidesormalice,layingdownthatwhenthepowerisconferredto

achieveapurposethatpowermustbeexercisedreasonablyandingoodfaith

toeffectuatethepurposeandwhenthepowerisexercisedforextraneousor

irrelevantconsiderationsorreasons,theexerciseofpowerisacolourable

exerciseofpowerorfraudonpowerwhichvitiatetheaction.

38.TherecannotbeanydisputeonthepropositionoflawasinPankaj

Bansal(supra)thattheactionisbadwherethetrueobjectistoreachanend

differentfromtheoneforwhichthepowerisentrusted,goadedbyextraneous

considerations,goodorbad.Whenthecustodianofpowerisinfluencedinits

exercisebyconsiderationsoutsidethoseforpromotionofwhichthepoweris

vested,itiscalledacolourableexerciseofpower.Thefraudonpowervoidsthe

orderifitisnotexercisedbonafidefortheenddesigned,isalsonota

propositionindispute.But,inthepresentcase,thequestionisofthe

applicabilityoftheprinciple.Wehavealreadyobservedintheearlierpartofthis

judgmentthatthepowerhasbeenexercisedunderthestatutoryprovisionsof

theITActunderSection131(1A)andthepleaofmalafidecouldnotbe

established.SotheprinciplesoflawasinPankajBansal(supra)cannotbe

attractedtothepresentcasetosupportthecontentionofthepetitioner’s

counseleitherofmalice,fraudofpower,orcolourableexerciseofpower.

39.InIshverlalJ.Naik(supra)itwasobservedthatwhenthereply

wascrypticandalsovagueitdidnotamounttoanydenialoftheavermentsof

factspleadedbythepetitioneranditcouldbeassumedthattheyweretrueand

RNT,J&BM,J

WPNo.841of2026

25

itwouldnotbewrongtoproceedonthatassumption.Weobservethatthe

principleiswellsettledthatifafactualaspecthasbeenpleadedandhasnot

beendeniedspecifically,andthereplyisonlycrypticandvague,itwouldnot

amounttothedenial,but,stillitisintheexerciseofjudicialdiscretionto

proceedornot,basedonsuchfact.TheCourtmaystillrequirethepetitionerto

provethatfact.However,inthepresentcasethecontentionofthepetitioner

raisedinthewritpetitionwithrespecttothemalice,malafideonthepartof

someoftherespondentshasbeenspecificallydeniedinthecounterofthe

respondents.

40.Thenextsubmissionofthelearnedseniorcounselforthepetitioner

isonthelackofjurisdictionintheIncomeTaxOfficer(Investigation)toissue

summons/noticesubmittingthatheisnotanauthorizedofficerincludedunder

Section131(1A)oftheITAct.

41.AsperSection131(1A)ofITAct,theauthoritiesmentioned

thereunderarethePrincipalDirectorGeneralorDirectorGeneralorPrincipal

DirectororDirectororJointDirectororAssistantDirectororDeputyDirector,or

theauthorisedofficerreferredtoinsub-section(1)ofsection132.Asper

Section132(1)(A)theincometaxofficerisincludedthereinonbeing

authorizedbythePrincipalDirectorGeneralorDirectorGeneralorPrincipal

DirectororDirectororthePrincipalChiefCommissionerorChiefCommissioner

orPrincipalCommissionerorCommissionerandunderclause(B),authorizedby

AdditionalDirectororAdditionalCommissionerorJointDirectororJoint

Commissioner.Readingboththeprovisionstogetheritcannotbesaidthatthe

RNT,J&BM,J

WPNo.841of2026

26

IncomeTaxOfficerisnotincludedunderSection131(1A)forissuanceofthe

summons/noticeunderthesaidSection.

42.Thereisnopleadinginthewritpetition,takinganygroundof

challengeofwantofjurisdictionintheIncomeTaxOfficer(Investigation)to

issuesummons/notice.IthasalsonotbeenpleadedthattheIncomeTax

Officer(Investigation)wasnotauthorizedunderSection131(1A)r/w.Section

132oftheITAct.Apleaofwantofjurisdictioncertainlycanberaisedatany

stagebutithastoberaised.Suchapleahasnotbeenraisedinthewrit

petitionandatthetimeofarguments,theothersidecannotbetakenby

surprise,byraisinganargumentnotbornfromtherecord/pleadingsonfactual

aspect.ThegroundNo.2inthewritpetitionisnot‘lackofjurisdiction’but

relatestotheexerciseofjurisdictionemphasizingthegroundofmalice/mala

fideduetoO.S.No.608of2025.

43.Sofarastheotherjudgmentrelieduponbythelearnedcounselsfor

boththesidesisconcerned,weconsiderasfollows:

i.InLaljibhaiKanjibhaiMandalia(supra)onwhichthereliance

wasplacedbythelearnedcounselfortherespondents,the

Hon’bleApexCourtreiteratedtheprinciplesinexercisingthewrit

jurisdictioninthematterofsearchandseizureunderSection132

oftheIncomeTaxAct.Howeverinthepresentcase,thestageof

searchandseizureunderSection132oftheActhasyetnotbeen

reached.Thestageisissuanceofsummons/noticecallingfor

RNT,J&BM,J

WPNo.841of2026

27

investigation,relevantdocumentsasunderSection131(1A)of

theAct.

ii.InN.K.Jewellers(supra)itwasheldthatthereasontobelieve

orreasontosuspect,asthecasemaybe,underSection132or

132AofITAct,shallnotbedisclosedtoanypersonorany

authorityortheAppellateTribunal.

iii.NaseemBano(supra)isnotonthepoint.It’sunderservicelaw,

i.e.,qualificationsforpromotionofC.T.gradeteachertoL.T.

gradeteacher.

iv.SkyviewConsultantsPrivateLimited(supra)isacaseof

reopeningoftheassessmentfortheparticularassessmentyear

underSection148oftheAct.Thepresentisthestageonlyunder

Section131(1A)askingforthedocumentsforverificationandat

thisstageitcannotbesaidthatthematterwouldorwouldnotbe

openedanditisnotthepetitioner’scasepleadedinWritPetition

orintheirreplysubmittedbeforeauthoritiesaboutno

authorizationofIncomeTaxOfficer(Investigation)underSection

131(1A).

v.InPawanKumarGarg(supra)thechallengewastothesearch

andseizuremadeon02.12.2020underSection132oftheITAct

andthenoticeissued,afterthesearchandseizure,underSection

131(1A)oftheAct.ItwasheldbytheGuwahatiHighCourtthat

thenoticesissuedunderSection131(1A)oftheActwereafter

RNT,J&BM,J

WPNo.841of2026

28

thesearchandseizureoperationunderSection132oftheAct

whichwenttoshowthattherewasneitheranyreasontosuspect

normaterialbeforetheAuthorizingOfficeronthebasisofwhich

searchoperationcouldhavebeenconductedunderSection132of

theAct.ItwasheldthatthenoticeunderSection131(1A)ofthe

Actwasapreconditionforsearchandseizureoperationunder

Section132oftheActandintheabsenceofanysuchnotice

underSection131(1A)oftheAct,priortothesearchandseizure,

thesearchandseizuremadeunderSection132oftheActwas

withoutanymaterialandcouldnotbesustained.TheGuwahati

HighCourtthusheldthatthenoticeunderSection131(1A)isa

preconditionforproceedingunderSection132oftheAct.

vi.WeobservethatonthesaidaspectdifferentHighCourtshave

takenadifferentview.Wearenotconcernedwiththesaidissue

inthepresentcase,thereasonbeingthatpresentisonlythe

stageofSection131(1A).Itisnotacaseofconductingthe

searchandseizurewithoutmakingcomplianceofSection131

(1A).Itisnotacaseofissuingthesummons/noticeunderSection

131(1A),afterthestageofSection132.Theaforesaidjudgment

isnohelptothepetitioner.

44.Nootherargumentwasadvanced.

45.Weholdthattheimpugnednotice/summonsunderSection131(1A)

oftheIncomeTaxActcannotbesaidtobeillegalorsufferingfromany

RNT,J&BM,J

WPNo.841of2026

29

infirmity,neitheronthegroundofmalicenoronthegroundofjurisdictional

error.

46.I.A.No.4of2026hasbeenfiledbythepetitionerfordirectiontothe

respondents1and2toreportonwhatactionwastakenontherepresentation

ofthepetitionerdated01.12.2025,sentinteraliatorespondents1and2

throughregisteredpost.Theprayerhasbeenmadecontendingthatthose

respondentshavenotfiledanycounteraffidavitandthatdespitereceivingthe

sameon04.12.2025,anyresponseoractionhasnotbeentaken.

47.WedonotfindanyforceintheapplicationI.A.No.4of2026,as

firstly,thesaidrepresentationcouldnotbeshowntoustobestatutoryin

nature,andsecondly,inthewritpetition,thereisnoprayermadewithrespect

tothesaidrepresentation.Anyinterimprayerbeyondthescopeofthemain

petitionisnotpermissible.Finally,weareoftheviewthatitisnotrelevantto

askwhatactionhasbeentakenonthepetitioner’srepresentation,asthe

proceedingsofsummons/noticeunderSection131(1A)oftheITAct,

impugnedinthepresentwritpetitionareunderthestatute,andanyactionor

decisiontakenornottaken,onthepetitioner’srepresentationoutsidethescope

ofsuchprovisionoftheIncomeTaxAct,isofnorelevanceforthedecisionof

thiswritpetition.

48.I.A.No.4of2026thereforestandsrejected.

49.Intheresult,fortheaforesaidreasons,thewritpetitionlacksmerit

andisdismissed.

RNT,J&BM,J

WPNo.841of2026

30

Pendingmiscellaneouspetitions,ifany,includingI.A.No.3of2026,shall

standclosedinconsequence.

_______________________

RAVINATHTILHARI,J

______________________

BALAJIMEDAMALLI,J

Date:18.03.2026

Dsr/AG

Note:

LRcopytobemarked

B/o

Dsr