Date of reserved for orders : nil Date of pronouncement : 14.06.2026 Date of uploading : 20.07.2026 APHC010346232026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3549] TUESDAY, THE 14th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION NO: 18588/2026 Between: 1. SRINIVASA ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTIONS COMPANY, REP. BY ITS PARTNER - VISHNU VARDHAN RAO POTIURI, D. NO. 40-4-5A, JASTI VENKATARATNAM STREET, LABBIPET VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH - 520010. 2. VISHNUVARDHAN RAO POTIURI, S/O VENKATARAMAIAH POTIURI, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, D. NO. 40-4-5A, JASTI VENKATARATNAM STREET, LABBIPET VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH - 520010. 3. RATNA KUMARI POTIURI, W/O VISHNUVARDHAN RAO POTIURI, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, D. NO. 40-4-5A, JASTI VENKATARATNAM STREET, LABBIPET VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH - 520010. 4. PRASANTH POTLURI, S/O VISHNUVARDHAN RAO POTIURI, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, D. NO. 40-4-5A, JASTI VENKATARATNAM STREET, LABBIPET VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH - 520010. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 2 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), VIJAYAWADA, C R BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR ANNEX, M G ROAD, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH, 520002. 2. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE CITA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ROOM NO. 401,2ND FLOOR, E-RAMP, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, DELHI-110003. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 topleased to issue a writ, order direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the arbitrary action of the 1st respondent in initiating the recovery proceedings for A.Ys. 2006-07 and 2011- 12 against the Firm vide notice dt.29.06.2026 bearing DIN - ITBA/COM/F/17/2026-27/1090560813(1) as well as all the partners vide notices dt. 29.06.2026 and 30.06.2026 pending disposal of the first appeal as void, illegal, and contrary to the provisions of Income-tax and contrary to the principles of natural justice and also direct the 2nd respondent to dispose of stay petition dt.01.07.2026 as well as Appeal filed on 23.01.2019 for A.Y. 2011-12, at the earliest in the interests of substantial justice and the pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to stay the recovery proceedings initiated for A.Ys. 2006-07 and 2011-12 by the 1st respondent both on the Petitioner-Firm as well as partners of the Petitioner Firm, till the disposal of appeal filed before the 2nd respondent/first appellate authority, and and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. DUNDU MANMOHAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION NO: 18588 of 2026 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ninala Jayasurya) Seeking to declare the action of respondent No.1 in initiating the recovery proceedings for assessment years 2006-07 and 2011-12, during the pendency of appeal as unjust, arbitrary and contrary to provisions of Income Tax Act, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Mr. Manmohan Dundu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Y.N. Vivekananda, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department. With their consent, the writ petition is being disposed of, at the stage of admission. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia submits that the petitioners firm was engaged in business of execution of construction and contract works, and its operations were discontinued from the year 2011, thereby, return of Income Tax was not filed for assessment year 2011-12. He submits that Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 alleging that assessee failed to file income tax returns, that in response to the said notice, petitioner filed its return of income tax on 22.10.2018 and disputed very basis of re-opening. He submits that without considering the submissions made by the petitioner firm, the Assessing Officer completed the 4 assessment on 20.12.2018 under Section 143(3) r/w. Section 147 of Income Tax Act. 4. Learned counsel submits that aggrieved by the order of assessment, petitioner-firm filed statutory appeal in Form-35 on 23.01.2019 and subsequently written submissions before the 2nd respondent were also filed. He further submits that on 16.03.2022, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax granted stay of payment till 30.06.2022 or till the disposal of the first appeal whichever is earlier. He submits that though the petitioner is ready to proceed with the appeal, for one reason or the other, the same was not disposed of. He also submits that the 1st respondent under the guise that no stay is in operation, has issued notice on 29.06.2026 calling upon the petitioner to pay outstanding tax and also issued separate notices to the partners of the petitioner firm. He submits that during the pendency of the appeal if coercive action is taken, the very purpose of filing appeal would be defeated and unless the interest of the petitioner is protected during the pendency of the appeal, it will suffer serious prejudice and great hardship. 5. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, while not disputing the factual position, however, submits that the petitioners instead of pursuing the appeal before the appellate authority, filed the present writ petition and the same cannot be entertained. 6. Considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. 5 7. Be that as it may. It is not in dispute that the petitioner filed the appeal against the order of the Assessing Officer as long as back in the year 2019. It is also not in dispute that stay was granted until 30.06.2022 or till the disposal of the appeal, whichever is earlier. It appears that subsequently, the stay was extended upto 31.03.2023 and the petitioner filed application before the appellate authority seeking stay. 8. Be that as it may. While no reasons are forthcoming as to delay in disposal of the appeal, keeping in view that the appeal was filed long back, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, providing that the 2nd respondent shall take up the appeal filed by the petitioner and dispose it of, in accordance with Law, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of four (4) months, from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. 9. Till the disposal of the appeal, the respondent authorities shall not initiate any coercive action for recovery of amounts, pursuant to the assessment orders, which are under appeal. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J _______________________ TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA, J GVK 6 27 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION No.18588 of 2026 Dt. 14.07.2026 GVK