Telangana High Court
Piramal Swasthya Management vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 23 April, 2026
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO
WP.No.12288 of 2023
Dt.23.04.2026
Between:
Piramal Swasthya Management and
Research Institute
....Petitioner
and
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
and another.
...Respondents
O R D E R:
(Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Suddala Chalapathi Rao)
The present writ petition has been filed for the following
reliefs:
“to issue writ, order or direction, (i) quashing the order,
dt.31.03.2023, bearing No.ITBA/ AST/F/148A/2022-
23/105180606401(1) passed under Section 148A(d) of the
Act(Annexure P9); (ii) quashing the notice, dt.31.03.2023,
bearing No.ITBA/AST/S/148_1/2022-23/1051806617(1)
issued under Section 148 of the Act (Annexure 10) and (iii)
pass such other or further orders as this Court may deem fit
in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of
justice and equity”.
2
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a society
registered under the AP Societies Registration Act, 2001 and is
also registered under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for
short, “the Act”), established with the main object of carrying out
extensive studies and research into various aspects relating to
health services, besides managing health-related programmes for
Government departments and other organizations with a view to
improving access to quality healthcare. Further, during the
financial year 2016-17, the petitioner launched several community
outreach programmes in the States of Andhra Pradesh, Assam,
Rajasthan and Telangana, in collaboration with the respective
State Governments.
3. For the assessment year 2017-18, the petitioner filed its
return of income declaring nil income and claimed a refund of
Rs.7,29,68,048/-, and the petitioner had accumulated an amount
of Rs.3,43,34,021/- and claimed exemption under Section 11(2) of
the Act.
4. It is further contended that so as to claim benefit under
Section 11(2) of the Act, with effect from 01.04.2016, for the
financial year 2016-17, under Rule 17 of the Income Tax Rules,
3
1962 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) filing of Form 10
electronically was mandatory within the stipulated time allowed
for filing the return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act, but
due to oversight, as the said requirement was introduced in the
very same financial year, the petitioner did not file Form 10
electronically along with the return of income, nonethless the
same had been prepared manually well before the filing of the
return.
5. It is further stated that the 1st respondent taken up the case
of the petitioner for scrutiny for the Assessment Year 2017-18,
and issued a notice, dt.13.08.2018, under Section 143(2) of the
Act calling upon the petitioner to produce all evidence in support
of the return of income filed, and in response thereto, the
petitioner furnished all the necessary documents, and insofar as
submission of Form 10, the petitioner, on specific discussion with
the 1st respondent, uploaded the same subsequiently, though it
was prepared manually prior to filing of the return of income.
6. Further, the 1st respondent, issued a notice, dt.18.01.2019,
under Section 142(1) of the Act calling upon the petitioner to
furnish various documents/information, including specific details
4
relating to filing of Form 10 and the deposits thereunder, to claim
the benefit under Sections 11(2) and 11(5) of the Act, and the
petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 24.01.2019 along with all
supporting documents and explanation relating to the amount set
aside/accumulated along with the bank accounts in which such
amounts were deposited. It was specifically urged that the
accumulated funds were invested in fixed deposits and savings
bank accounts in scheduled banks, which satisfied the
requirements of Sections 11(2) and 11(5) of the Act, and a copy of
Form 10 was furnished along with the said reply.
7. Further, the 1st respondent had specifically examined the
issue relating to non-filing of Form 10 electronically in pursuance
of Rule 17(2) and (3) of the Rules, as well as in compliance of
investments in terms of Section 11(5) of the Act, granted a
personal hearing on 06.03.2019, and upon examination of the
explanation submitted by the petitioner along with the documents
and information, along with Form 10 filed manually, completed
the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act vide order
dt.26.07.2019, by accepting the return of income.
5
8. While matters stood thus, the 1st respondent having
completed the assessment, vide the assessment order
dt.26.07.2019, after a period of four years from the end of the
relevant Assessment Year(2017-18), issued a notice,
dt.27.02.2023, under Section 148A(b) of the Act, directing the
petitioner to show cause as to why a notice under Section 148 of
the Act should not be issued stating that certain income had
escaped assessment. In the said notice it was stated that as per
Rule 17 of the Rules, Form 10 was required to be electronically
submitted along with the return of income and since the same was
not electronically transmitted, as such, the petitioner was not
eligible for the benefit under Section 11(2) r/w Section 11(5) of the
Act, and accordingly, the amount of Rs.3,43,34,021/- set apart
under Section 11(2) was proposed to be added to the total income.
9. In response to the said notice, the petitioner submitted a
detailed reply, dt.07.03.2023, inter alia contending that the
assessment proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Act had
already been concluded by order, dt.26.07.2019, and that the
issue relating to filing of Form 10, including its electronic
transmission under Section 17(2) & (3) of the Act, had been
6
examined during the original assessment proceedings by
accepting the physical filing of the same, by the then assessing
officer, and further, once the assessment was completed and
orders were passed, the very same authority cannot reopen the
same, as it amounts to reviewing its own order, which is
impressible under law.
10. Further, in support of the said contentions, the petitioner
had placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of CIT v. Nagpur Hotels Owners Association 1
and contends that once the requirements under the Act are
fulfilled before the completion of the assessment proceedings, the
petitioner is entitled to claim benefit under Sections 11(2) & (5) of
the Act.
11. It is further stated that the 1 st respondent failed to
appreciate the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Nagpur Hotels Owners Association‘s case (supra), passed the
impugned order dt.31.03.2023 under Section 148A(d) of the Act
bearing No. ITBA/AST/F/148A/2022-23/ 105180606401(1) and
consequently issued notice bearing No. ITBA/AST/S/148_1/2022-
1 (2001) 247 ITR 201
7
23/1051806617(1), under Section 148 of the Act on the same day
of 31.03.2023, which are challenged in the present writ petition.
12. The 1st respondent filed counter affidavit contending that the
assessment for the year 2017-18 was originally completed under
Section 143(3) of the Act on 26.07.2019 and subsequently, a
revenue audit objection was raised on the ground that the
petitioner had filed Form 10 (statement for accumulation under
Section 11(2)) in offline mode during the scrutiny proceedings,
whereas the law mandates that it must be filed electronically
before filing the return of income. Further, it is stated that based
on the said audit objection, a notice under Section 148A(d) of the
Act was issued on 27.02.2023 to the petitioner, and after
considering the petitioner’s response, the order under Section
148A(d), dt.31.03.2023 was passed, recording the satisfaction that
income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment on the following
grounds:
a) The benefit of accumulation under Section 11(2) can
only be allowed to the extent of investments made
during the year of accumulation, whereas the
petitioner claimed benefits from deposits made in
earlier years;
8
b) Form 10 was filed offline and not electronically prior to
the filing of the return of income; and
c) The income alleged to have escaped assessment is
Rs.3,43,34,021/-, which exceeds Rs.50 lakhs and is
represented in the form of assets, thereby attracting
the extended limitation under Section 149(1)(b) of the
Act.
13. It was further contended that, in view of the above, as proper
procedure was followed, the impugned proceedings are not vitiated
by law, and the notice under Section 148 has been validly issued
for reopening the case under Section 147 of the Act, as such,
there is no legal impediment in the impugned proceedings, and
the writ petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.
14. Heard Sri T. Suryanarayana, learned Senior Counsel
representing Sri K. Raghavendra Rao, learned counsel for
petitioner, Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel
for respondent No.1, and Sri Vijay K. Punna, learned Senior
Standing Counsel for respondents No.2.
15. Learned Senior Counsel, while reiterating the writ averments
contended that as the impugned order, along with the
consequential notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, having
been passed after a lapse of more than four years from the end of
9
the relevant assessment year, are in violation of the statutory
stipulation of revision.
16. It is further contended that the 1 st respondent had no
jurisdiction to review the earlier orders passed by the very same
level of authority on 26.07.2019, and thus, the writ petition is
maintainable, and this Court has ample jurisdiction and authority
to entertain the same in view of the settled principles of law as
enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Assistant Commissioner (CT), LTU, Kakinada & Ors. vs. M/s.
Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited2 and
Nagpur Hotels Owners Association‘s case (supra).
17. On the other hand, Sri Vijay K. Punna, learned Senior
Standing Counsel, along with learned Standing Counsel Sri A.
Ramakrishna Reddy, appearing for respondent No.1, would
contend that the reopening of the petitioner’s case is covered
under Explanation I(ii) to Section 148, as inserted by the Finance
Act, 2022, which deems any audit objection suggesting improper
assessment to constitute valid “information” for the purpose of
Section 147 proceedings. It is also contended that, under Section
2 2020 (19) SCC 681
10
149(1)(b), since the alleged escapement exceeds Rs.50 lakhs, the
respondent authorities have jurisdiction, and the impugned show-
cause notice along with the subsequent proceedings have been
issued within the prescribed limitation.
18. Having given earnest consideration to the submissions
made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties, perused the material on record.
19. In the above factual matrix, the points which fall for
consideration before this Court are:
1. Whether the impugned proceeding, dt.31.03.2023, amounts
to a review of the earlier assessment order passed by the
very same authority on 26.07.2019; and
2. Whether the fact that Form 10, which is mandated to be
electronically transmitted under Rule 17(2) & (3) of the
Income Tax Rules, 1962, was not electronically filed, has any
impact on the reopening of proceedings, when the said form
had already been verified and accepted by the assessment
authorities in the earlier assessment order, dt.26.07.2019.
20. In the light of the points framed as above, the main
grievance of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that
once Form 10 was examined, albeit filed manually, and accepted
by the authorities as correct and valid, resulting the assessment
11
proceedings being completed and order, dt.26.07.2019, was
passed, and the very same authority cannot re-open or review the
same order, and thus, the impugned proceedings are bad in law.
21. It is an admitted fact that while Form 10 was required to be
electronically submitted under Rule 17(2) & (3) of the Income Tax
Rules, 1962, this requirement came into effect from the very
assessment year 2017-18(FY 2016-17) in question. Since the
Form 10 was not electronically transmitted before filing the
return, the petitioner had filed the same manually along with the
return. Further, the petitioner, in paras 14, 15 & 16 of its letter,
dt.24.01.2019, addressed to the Assistant Commissioner of
Income Tax (Exemptions), had clearly stated this fact.
Subsequently, in response to a notice, dt.18.01.2019, issued by
the 1st respondent, the petitioner uploaded Form 10, which was
acknowledged by the 1st respondent vide acknowledgment
No.24011911109655, and the 1st respondent by duly examining
the return of income for the relevant assessment year, and having
satisfied with the same, has completed the assessment and
passed the assessment order, dt.26.07.2019.
12
22. Further, once the assessment proceedings are completed
and assessment order is passed, the 1st respondent cannot reopen
the assessment proceedings by issuing the impugned show-cause
notice, dt.27.02.2023, alleging that Form 10 had not been
electronically submitted, thereby disentitling the petitioner to the
benefit of Sections 11(2) and 11(5) of the Act in respect of the
amount of Rs.3,43,34,021/-, and thus, the impugned show-cause
notice is untenable, for the simple reason that the return of
income, along with Form 10, though filed manually, was duly
examined and accepted by the assessment authorities at the time
of the original assessment order, dt.26.07.2019, pursuant to
which, the assessment proceedings were completed, in all respects
and the order was validly passed, and the assessment officer once
accepts the manually submitted Form 10 and completes the
assessment, reopening of the said completed assessment would
amount to review, which is impermissible under law. Thus, the
contention of the learned Senior Standing Counsel as the Form 10
was not electronically submitted as mandated under Rules 17(2) &
(3), the earlier assessment is liable to reopened, does not hold
merit and is negated.
13
23. It is settled principle of law that an Assessing Officer cannot
review an order already passed by the very same authority, it
amounts to change of opinion or review, which is impermissible
under law. This principle was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Nagpur Hotels Owners Association‘s case (supra).
24. In view of the above findings, we are of the considered view
that the impugned proceeding, dated 31.03.2023, amount to a
review of the earlier assessment order, dt.26.07.2019, passed by
the very same authority. Thus, in our considered view, the
impugned order suffers from gross illegality, vitiated by law,
perverse, and is liable to set aside. Thus, the points framed by
this Court are answered in favour of the petitioner and against the
respondents.
25. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned
order, dt.31.03.2023, bearing No.ITBA/AST/S/148_1/2022-23/
1051806617(1), and the consequential order, dt.31.03.2023,
bearing No.ITBA/AST/F/148A/2022-23/ 105180606401(1) are
hereby set aside and quashed. No order as to costs.
14
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
_________________________________
P.SAM KOSHY, J
________________________________
SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO, J
23rd April, 2026
gra