IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN WRIT PETITION No. 32815 of 2025 DATED : 03.12.2025 Between:

Anil Kumar Aggarwal … Petitioner AND The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Hyderabad and four others … Respondents

ORDER:

Sri K. Rajasekhar, learned counsel appears for Sri Pareddy Rosi Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner.

Ms. Bokaro Sapna Reddy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department appears for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

Sri B. Mukherjee, learned counsel appears for Sri N. Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, for respondent No.4.

2. The following relief has been prayed for in the instant Writ Petition.

“For the above-mentioned reasons, I pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction preferably a Writ in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 3^rd Respondent in issuing attachment notice dated 12.11.2024 under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961 on account of the alleged illegal demands raised for assessment years 1987- 88 to 2003-04 after a delay of 35 years and directing the 5^th Respondent Bank to pay an amount of Rs.19,97,115/- to the 3^rd Respondent which resulted in freezing of savings Bank account of the Petitioner on 07.07.2025 not allowing the Petitioner to utilize deposit of Rs.6,12,000/- lying in the Savings Account No.630801320855 maintained with ICICI Bank, Kharkhana Branch, B1, Vikrampuri Colony, Secunderabad as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper, whimsical, and contrary to the provisions of Income tax Act, 1961, principles of natural justice, violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, 265 & 300A of the Constitution of India and consequent DIRECT the Respondent No.3 to forthwith lift the attachment issued to 5^th Respondent.”

3. After considerable hearing on the previous date, the Department brought on record a series of letters and Tax Recovery Certificates issued to the petitioner over a period of twelve (12) years before the Impugned notice dated 12.11.2024 was issued and apprised the Court that the petitioner assessee has been changing addresses without intimation to the Department. It was noticed that the writ affidavit does not disclose the material facts as regards the company of which the petitioner was the Director and how many times, the petitioner has changed the address in respect of the same PAN Card. The learned counsel for the petitioner took time to disclose the status of the company as to whether it is still on the register of Registrar Of Companies or it has been wound up.

4. Today, copies of the statement containing details of the companies in which the petitioner was a Director, and copy of an order dated 13.09.2021 passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad, in I.T.(SS)A.No.7/HYD/2010, have been filed. By way of additional affidavit, relevant material facts which were not placed before the Court in the original Writ Petition have been sought to be brought on record by the petitioner in support of his challenge to the issuance of the tax recovery notice dated

12.11.2024.

5. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent Department, we are of the view that in the first place, the petitioner should have come clean with all relevant material facts and documents while assailing the tax recovery notice dated 12.11.2024. Moreover, on perusal of the averments made in the Writ Petition and several averments made in the additional affidavit as regards the status of the company in which the petitioner was a Director; the change of address in the PAN Card of the petitioner undertaken earlier and the order passed in an Income Tax Appeal preferred by four such companies, namely, M/s. Kumar Liquors & Beers Private Limited, Hyderabad; M/s. Kumar Cotex Limited, Hyderabad; M/s. Kumar Spirits Private Limited, Hyderabad and M/s. Stilbene