THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.14742 of 2025 ORDER : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)

Heard Mr. Santosh Sagar Kapilavai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vijay K. Punna, leaned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department appearing for the respondents. Perused the record.

2. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the assessment order, dated 30.01.2024, for the assessment year 2023-

2024.

3. The challenge primarily was that of notices those were issued by the Department in the initial stage before the notice under Section 142 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) was issued to the petitioner company were not firstly issued in favour of the company. Secondly, it was never served upon the petitioner company and thirdly it was issued to the one of the Directors, viz., Mr. Krishna Rao, who do not have much say in the role of the company and it was not the email ID on which the petitioner company has been submitting its returns since past many years. Hence, it has to be treated that a notice issued under Section 133 (6) to the Directors to have not been properly served.

4. On the other hand, the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department opposing the petition submits that the petitioner at the outset ought to have availed the statutory alternative remedy of appeal before knocking the doors of this Court under the writ jurisdiction. He further submits that undoubtedly, the notice under Section 133 (6) was issued to one of the Directors of the petitioner company by name Mr. Krishna Rao, and there does not seem to have any dispute that the mail having not been received by the said Director of the said company. In view of the same the learned Senior Standing Counsel submits that the notice issued under Section 133 (6) has to be accepted as duly served and the petitioner should not be permitted to take that ground now as the said email ID was registered with the Department, so far as the said person Mr. Krishna Rao is concerned.

5. Having heard the contentions putforth on either side and on perusal of the records, what we find is that there appears to be two Directors in the said company. The main Director is Mr. N.V. Murali Krishna Mullapudi, whose email ID was the same that the company has and it is the same email ID in which the returns of the company has been filed for the past many years. 6. It is also the case that the said person viz., Mr. N.V. Murali Krishna Mullapudi, who was the main partner who runs the company and not the other person viz., Mr. Krishna Rao.

7. Upon verification of facts and also on a query put to the learned Senior Standing Counsel, admittedly, no notice under Section 133 (6) has been issued against the said Director viz., Mr. N.V. Murali Krishna Mullapudi, whose email ID was that the company has and on which the returns were also filed.

8. However, the learned Senior Standing Counsel submits that so far as Mr. N.V. Murali Krishna Mullapudi is concerned, he too was issued with a notice, but the mail was sent on the email ID which was also been used by Mr. Krishna Rao and therefore, it cannot be presumed that Mr. N.V. Murali Krishna Mullapudi, was not issued or served with the notice.

9. Perusal of the records would go to show that there is no material produced by the respondents showing the registered email ID of the two partners viz., Mr. N.V. Murali Krishna Mullapudi and Mr. Krishna Rao to be same. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that there does not seem to be any notice issued to the main Director of the petitioner company viz., Mr. N.V. Murali Krishna Mullapudi, and thus it can be safely said that there appears to be denial of fair opportunity of hearing to one of the Directors of the company as also to the company. Therefore, the impugned assessment order to the aforesaid extent is liable to be interdicted with and the matter deserves to be remitted back for