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 WRIT PETITION No.13322 of 2022 DATE: 06.03.2026 Between:

M/s. Creamline Dairy Products Limited.

…Petitioner AND The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Room No. 711, 7th Floor, ‘A’ Block, IT Tower, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad, Telangana – 500 004 and others.

…Respondents

ORDER:

(per the Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)

Heard Mr. Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel appearing on

behalf of Mr. Kopal Sharraf, learned counsel for the petitioner; and

Mr. Bokaro Sapna Reddy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income

Tax Department appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief/s, viz., “………to issue a writ, order or a direction, particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents, particularly Respondent No. 2-3, 6-10, in issuing the Impugned Notice under Section 148 dated 30.03.2021 bearing Notice No. ITBA/AST/S/148/2020-21/1031935111 (1) on the basis of the Impugned Approval under Section 151 dated 30.03.2021 (received on 11.03.2022) bearing Document No. ITBA/AST/S/118/2020-21/1031927703(1) seeking to reopen the assessment of the Petitioner Company for the Assessment Year 2016-17 as being without jurisdiction, arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and in contravention of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequently:

(a) Set aside the Notice dated 30.03.2021 bearing Notice No. ITBA/AST/S/148/2020-21/1031935111(1) issued by Respondent No, 3;

(b) Set aside the Approval dated 30.03.2021 (received on 11.03.2022) bearing Document No. ITBA/AST/S/118/2020-

21/1031927703(1) issued by Respondent No. 2; and (c) Set aside the Show Cause Notice dated 11.03.2022 bearing Document no. ITBA/AST/F/142(1)/2021-22/1040620689(1) issued by Respondent No. 6 to 10 and pass any other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.”

3. The facts of the case in nutshell are that the original assessment for the Assessment Year 2016-17 was completed by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 17.12.2018 after detailed scrutiny and consideration of all relevant documents and submissions made by the petitioner. However, the respondent authorities, specifically respondent Nos.2 and 3, issued an approval dated 30.03.2021 under Section 151 of the Act and subsequently issued a notice under Section 148 of the Act on the same date seeking to reopen the assessment. The reasons for reopening were not communicated to the petitioner until 11.03.2022, when a show-cause notice was also issued giving the petitioner less than four working days to respond to the matters pertaining to transactions from five years prior.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the impugned notice dated 30.03.2021 (received on 11.03.2022) and the impugned notice dated 11.03.2022 are fundamentally flawed and bad in law as they constitute a prohibited change of opinion. The original assessment was completed on 17.12.2018 after a detailed scrutiny proceedings wherein the Assessing Officer examined all relevant facts, documents and submissions made by the petitioner. During those proceedings, the Assessing Officer had full opportunity to examine the very same transactions and issues that are now sought to be reopened. Moreover, the petitioner had disclosed all the material facts truly and fully, and the Assessing Officer applied his mind to those facts and arrived at conclusions after due consideration. The settled position in law, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in numerous decisions including Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-12(3)(2) and Others vs. Marico Limited, (2020) 16 Supreme Court Cases 354, Marico Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-12(3)(2) and Others, 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 4772, and Commissioner o