TEP-Based Income Tax Summons Can't Be Quashed Without Proof Of Mala Fide: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that summons issued under Section 131(1A) of the Income Tax Act on the basis of a Tax Evasion Petition (TEP) cannot be quashed in writ jurisdiction in the absence of clear and convincing proof of mala fide, particularly where such allegations are raised belatedly and lack foundational pleadings or supporting material.

A Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Balaji Medamalli dismissed a writ petition filed by Koduru Picheswara Rao challenging summons issued by the Income Tax Department. The judges observed:

“the impugned notice/summons under Section 131 (1A) of the Income Tax Act cannot be said to be illegal or suffering from any infirmity, neither on the ground of malice nor on the ground of jurisdictional error.”

The Income Tax Officer (Investigation), Vijayawada issued summons dated 14 November 2025 to Rao seeking details including books of accounts, bank statements, sources of income and assets from 1 April 2019 onwards.

Rao challenged the summons alleging mala fide intent, contending that the action was meant to pressurise him in connection with a civil property dispute involving relatives of a senior Income Tax official.

The Court rejected the contention, noting that neither the petitioner nor the respondent was a party to the civil suit relied upon and that the alleged connection was remote. It further observed that the plea of mala fide was not raised in the petitioner's replies to the summons and was introduced for the first time in the writ petition, which undermined its credibility.

The Court recorded that the proceedings were initiated pursuant to an anonymous Tax Evasion Petition received on 12 November 2025. The Bench perused the TEP during the hearing and found that there was material warranting initiation of an inquiry. It also noted that the authorities followed the prescribed Standard Operating Procedure, including allotment of a Unique Identification Number and obtaining approval before issuing summons.

Rejecting the contention that the Income Tax Officer (Investigation) lacked jurisdiction to issue summons, the Court held that a combined reading of Sections 131(1A) and 132 of the Income Tax Act empowers such officers to issue summons when duly authorized. The Bench observed:

“As per Section 132 (1) (A) the income tax officer is included therein on being authorized by the Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Director or Director or the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner and under clause (B), authorized by Additional Director or Additional Commissioner or Joint Director or Joint Commissioner. Reading both the provisions together it cannot be said that the Income Tax Officer is not included under Section 131 (1A) for issuance of the summons/notice under the said Section.”

The Court also rejected the petitioner's interim application seeking a report on action taken on his representation to tax authorities, holding that the representation was not statutory and was beyond the scope of the writ petition. The Bench stated:

“it is not relevant to ask what action has been taken on the petitioner's representation, as the proceedings of summons / notice under Section 131 (1A) of the IT Act, impugned in the present writ petition are under the statute, and any action or decision taken or not taken, on the petitioner's representation outside the scope of such provision of the Income Tax Act, is of no relevance for the decision of this writ petition.”

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the summons.

For Petitioner(s): K. S. Murthy, Senior Counsel, Assisted by Sri K. Guru Raj

For Respondent(s) 1 to 5: Sri Challa Dhanunjay, Asst.Solicitor General Sri Y. N. Vivekananda, Standing Counsel

For Respondent(s) No. 6: Sri Praveen Kumar Reddy, SC for Income Tax

For Respondent(s) No. 7: Sri Anup Koushik Karavadi, SC for Income Tax