ITTA/1/2010 of Mahesh Chand Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, on 9 February 2026

1. [\4ahesh Chand(died per LR. R 2)

2. Trilok Chand, S/o. late Sri N/lahesh Chand, aged about 62 years. Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.7 -1-9512, Ameerpet Hyderabad-sO001 6. (Appellant No.2 brought on record as LR of Sole Appellant as per court order dated 1.010212025 in l.A.No.3 oI2O25.l ...Appellants AND Deputy Commissioner of lncome Tax, Central Circle -4, Hyderabad. ..Respondent Counset for the Appellants : Sri A,Naren Rudra, Counsel representing counser ror the Respondent : Ms.:H:"3:;'l'Jl;""' (senior Sc lncome Tax) The Court delivered the following: Judgment ii I il

IN TIIE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THIi HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND TH[] HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA I.T.T.A.No.l of 2010 Dated: 09.02,2026 Between: Mr.Trilol: Chand ...Appellant AND Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central C ircle - 4, H1'derabad. ...Respondent JUDG ENT (per I'lon'ble Sri Jttstice ['.Sunt Koshl) Heard Mr.A.Naren Rudra, learned counsel representing Mr.D.Jagan Mohan Reddy, learned cottnsel for the petitioner and Ms.B.SaJtna Reddy, learned senior standing counsel for Income Tax appearin5,, on behalf of the respondent. Perused the record.

2. Ihe instant appeal is the one which was filed in the year 2OlO anrl which stood admitted vide order dated 29.06.2010. Though initially appeal was admitted on various other grounds that which is reflected in the memo itself, however, today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the appellant \ \ \

submits that in addition to the grounds of appeal already raised, one more crucial substantial question of law which needs to be considered and which the learned counsel for the appellant fonnulates is: "whether the notice under section t43(2) of the Income Tax Act is required to be served or issued within the prescribed period reckonedfroo, ih" last day of the month in which the return of income is filed by the assessee? "

3. Ms.B.Sapna Reddy, learned Senior Standing counsel for the Department who opposes such a request being made at this juncture particularly when the appeal is of the year 2010, however, considering the fact that provisions of Section 260-4(4) provides for the court to frame any legal grounds which crops up for hearing at a later stage or at the time of hearing strengthens the claim of the appellant so far as raising the aforesaid substantial question of law. We, accordingly allow the same.

4. As regards the said issue i.e., the substantial question of law raised by the appellant today so far as whether the notice under Section 143(2) has infact to be issued or it requires to be served

) \ within the period of limitation prescribed under the Act, this High Court v€ry recently in a batch of ITTAs pertaining to the other famity members of the appellant herein i.e., [TTA Nos.252 of 2008 and batch which stood decided on 30.01.2026 and wherein the High Corrrt has taken a stand that the notice under Section 1a3(2) is not just lo be issued but also has to be effectively served upon the pafties is what the statute requires.

5. Since this High Court has already taken a categorical stand on the said substantial question of law in the connected appeals of the family members of the appellant herein, we are inclined lo take the same stand and allow the present appeal also by answering the substantial question of law raised today in favour of the appel lant/assessee and against the revenue/respondent.

6. As a consequence, the notice under Section 143(2) issued I on 29.01.2002 and which was served on 04.02.2002 is barred by limitation. The material dates in the instant appeal are also identical so far as the other connected appeals which are being decided by \ \ \

this Court, which forces us to draw the same analogy and allow the appeal

7. Since we allow the appeal on the instant substantial question of law, the other substantial questions of law stand unanswered and are left open to .be considered in an appropriate case

8. The appeal is accordingly allowed. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. SD/- M.VIJAYA BHASKER JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER

1. The lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench 'B', Hyderabad

2. The Deputy Commissioner of lncome Tax, Central Circle - 4, Hyderabad.

3. One CC to SRl. D JAGAN MOHAN REDDY, Advocate IOPUC]

4. One CC to SRl. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY (SENIOR SC INCOME TAX) Advocate TOPUCI

5. Two CD Copies / To, ADK/PSL+p

HIGH COIJRT DATED: 0,9/0212026 JUDGMEI{T lTTA.No.1 of 2010 ALLOWIN{G THE ITTTA WITHOUTCOSTS

,() (-r A 7 "ri8 )t)ti * a\\ a sb )