High Court of Andhra Pradesh · Judgments and reasoned final orders
Gummadi Venkateswarlu v. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and Others
W.P. No. 23706 of 2026 ·
Recovery demand notice dated 10.08.2026 and Second Schedule Rule 83 summons dated 11.08.2026 for AYs 1992-93 to 1995-96 stayed where the assessee's first appeals against the assessment orders dated 30.03.1998 had remained pending before the CIT(A) since 1998; CIT(A) directed to dispose of the appeals within 4 months.
1. FACTS OF THE CASE
Gummadi Venkateswarlu filed W.P. No. 23706 of 2026 challenging a Demand Notice dated 10.08.2026 and a summons dated 11.08.2026 issued under Rule 83 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961 requiring him to appear in connection with recovery proceedings for AYs 1992-93 to 1995-96. The petitioner pointed out that his statutory first appeals against the underlying reassessment order dated 30.03.1998 passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 had been pending adjudication before the CIT(A) (1st respondent) since 1998 — a period of 28 years.
2. DISCUSSION BY THE COURT
On instructions, Senior Standing Counsel for the Department confirmed that the petitioner's appeals against the order dated 30.03.1998 were indeed still pending before the 1st respondent and stated that they would be disposed of if sufficient time were granted. The Division Bench held that the ends of justice required directing the 1st respondent to dispose of the long-pending appeals within a fixed time limit while staying all coercive recovery proceedings in the meantime.
3. JUDICIAL DECISION
The Andhra Pradesh High Court disposed of W.P. No. 23706 of 2026 by directing the 1st respondent (CIT(A)) to dispose of the petitioner's pending appeals within four months in accordance with law, and stayed all coercive recovery proceedings including the demand notice dated 10.08.2026 and summons dated 11.08.2026 until the disposal of the appeals.
4. OUTCOME
In favour of the assessee (Gummadi Venkateswarlu); CIT(A) directed to decide 1998 appeals within 4 months and recovery demand/Rule 83 summons stayed.
5. AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: The Tax Recovery Officer cannot enforce coercive recovery or Second Schedule Rule 83 summonses for legacy assessment years (here, AYs 1992-93 to 1995-96) while the taxpayer's statutory first appeals against the 1998 assessment order remain undecided by the CIT(A).
Source and verification
Reviewed from the complete 4-page official High Court judgment PDF (20260819_APHC010436692026.pdf, SHA-256: f034af3a628c9df138920185edbd3dc2d347bd2848f29b4e7472bb12d98dfe17).
Original PDF: 4 pages · SHA-256: f034af3a628c9df138920185edbd3dc2d347bd2848f29b4e7472bb12d98dfe17
Supplied source-reviewed note retained; original bytes and identity validation checked in this release. Substantive re-review is not claimed for this record.
Refers to the Income-tax Act, 1961 and allied statutory rules/circulars as applicable to the relevant assessment years.
No subsequent Supreme Court reversal or stay is recorded in the source judgment text.
AI disclosure and professional disclaimer
AI-assisted source review. Independent human approval is not represented.
General research only. Read the complete judgment and verify applicable law and subsequent treatment before reliance.