Aashritha Homes and Developers V. Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Department, Ministry of Finance, Delhi and The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 9(1), I.T. Towers, Hyderabad

WP/7836/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Aashritha Homes and Developers, represented by its managing partner, Sri Bollineni Venkateswarlu, challenging the orders passed by the Income Tax Department under sections 147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2018-19. The petitioner argued that the orders were arbitrary, illegal, and violated the provisions of sections 148A, 149, and 151A of the Act, as well as the circular issued by the CBDT. The respondents did not dispute the procedural flaws but contended that there were other objections raised by the petitioner that needed consideration. The court's decision was influenced by a previous judgment on similar jurisdictional issues, leading to the quashing of the impugned notices and orders.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 798634 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Ashish Agarwal case
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Section 147, 148, 149, 151A of the Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: A V RAGHURAM
• Keywords: Faceless assessment; Income Tax; Jurisdictional issue; Procedural Flaw; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 147; 148; 149; 151A; 226

Judgement Text

"[ 337e ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (SPecial Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSANO AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOS+IY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.7836 OF 2024 Between: Aashritha Homes and Developers, Flat No.304' Margadarshi C9Lo.ny, Kothapet, tivOljijOiO --SOOoS5. Rep., by its tvlanaging Partner, Sri Bollineni Venkateswarlu, S/o. Late Sri B. Sundaraiah. ...PETITIONER Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Department, Ministry of Finance, Room No. 401, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi - 1 10 003. Centre. lncome Tax 2d Floor, E-Ramp, AND 1 2. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward - 9(1), l.T. Towers, A.C. Guards, Masabtank, Hyderabad - 500004. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ot the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to pass an order or direction, especially one in the nature of wRlT oF MANDAMUS holding that the order passed by 1St Respondent u/s. 147 r.ry.s 1448 of the Acr, d1.16103t2024 with DIN No. ITBA/AST/S/14712023- 24t1O62731O11(1) for the Ay.2018-19, as arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, void ab initio, apart from being violative of provisions of section lzEA and section 149 of the Act and also contrafy to the circular issued by cBDT and provisions of section 151A of the Act, and consequently set aside the order passed by 1St Respondent uls. 147 r.w.s 1448 of the Act, dt.$n3/2024 with DIN No. ITBA/AST|S|147|2023- 2411062731011( 1 ) for the Ay.201 8-19 and all consequential proceedings pursuant thereto. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings, including any recovery, pursuant to the order passed by the 1st Respondent uls. 147 r.w.s '1448 of the Act, dt.1610312024 with DIN No. ITBA/AST/S I 1 47 I 2023-24 I 1 0627 31 O 1 1 ( 1 ) for the Ay. 20 1 B- 1 9 Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A. V. RAGHU RAM Counsel for the Respondents: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following: ORDER !, l, I i I' i ll THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSITY AND THE,HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUI(ARAMJI WRIT PETITIOT{ No.7836 oF 20.24 ORDER:{per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.gM KOSfiY) The instant Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articl e 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the following relief: \"...to pass an order or direction espectally one in the noture of WRIT OF MANDAM|IS lnldittg tlwt tle order possed bu 7st Respondent u/s 147 r.u.t.s 1448 of tte Act dt.16/ 03/ 2024 ruith DIN ]Vo ITBA/AST/S/ 147/2023-24/ 1062731011(1) for tle Au. 2018-19 as arbitrary illegal bad in law uoid ab initio' apart from being uiolotive of proui.sions of sectbn 148A and section 149 of the Act and also antrary to the ciranlar isxted bg CBDT and proui.siorts of sedion 151A of the Act artd consequentl!4 set aside tle order passed bu lst Resryndent u/s 147 r.u.s 1448 of the Ad, dt.16/ 03/ 2024 urith DIN lYo. ITBA/AST/ S/ 147/ 202324/ 106273101 1 1 for tte Au- 2018-19 and all conseqtential pro@edings pursltant tlereto and pass...\" 2. Heard Mr. A.V. Raghu Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner; and Ms. B. Sapna Reddy, learned counsel representing Mr. J.V. Prasad, learned Senior Standing 2 Counsel for Income Tax for respondents. perused the record. 3. One of the contentions that the petitioner has raised in the present Writ Petition is that under the amended provisions of the Act which carne into effect from Ol.O4.2O2l, the respondents, while proceeding under Section 148 of the Act, were required to issue notice under Section 148A and provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. As per the amended provision of law, the proceedings to be drawn are also in a faceless manner. 4. Whereas, Iearned counsel for the petitioner contended that, in the instant case, reopening has been initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. In support of his contention, he relied upon the recent judgment rendered by this very Bench in Wp.No.259O3 of 2022 & batch, dated 14.O9.2023 wherein this Court disposed of the batch of writ petitions to the limited extent. 5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Department does not dispute that the said objection was decided in the aforesaid batch -qf_Writ 3 \") Petitions. However, he further contended tl:at apart ftorn the aforesaid objection, there have been other various objections also which the petitioner has raised in the writ petition. 6. So far as this contention of the learned counsel for the respondent-Department is concerned, this Bench, while disposing of said batch of writ petitions, had taken note of the same at paragraph Nos.37 & 38 which are reproduced herein under: '37. TfE preliminory objection raised by the petitioner is sustained and all these writ petitions sto:nds alloued on this uery jurisdictional isste. Sine the impugned noties and orders are getting quasled on tle point of jurisdiction, u)e are not indind to proeed further and decide the other issues raised bg tte petitioner uhich sfands reserued to be raised and ontended in an appropriate proeeding s. \" '38. Sine tle Hon'ble Suprcme Court had, in tle case of Ashish Agarutal, suPraa a.s a one-time tleasure exercising tle pouers under Article 142 of tle Constitution of Intia, permitted the Reuenue to proeed urtder tle sttbstituted prouisions, and thi.s Court allowing the petitiotts only on the ptoedural flau' tle right anfened on the Reuenue uoud remain reserued to proed furtlcr if theg so uant from the stage of the order of the Supreme Court in tlc mse of Ashish Agarunl, supra.o 4 7 . In view of the sarne, we are inclined to allow the present writ petition also on sirnilar terms. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition stands allowed on the objection of the petitioner that the proceedings have not been drawn in accordance with the amended provision but under the un-amended provision which is otherwise not sustainable. 8. As has been held by this Bench in the aforesaid batch matters, the rights of the parties would stand reserved as is envisaged at paragraph Nos.37 & 38 of the said order passed in the batch of writ petitions. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. P. PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISYRAR $.t SECTION dFTICCR 1. The Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, lncorne Tax ' Deoartment. Ministry of Finance, Room No 401, 2nd Floor' E-Ramp' Jawaharlal Nehru Stidium, Delhi - 110 003' 2.ThelncomeTaxOfficer,Ward-9(1),1.T'Towers,AC'Guards'Masabtank' Hyderabad - 500004. 3. One CC to SRI A. V. RAGHU RAtr/I, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRI J. V. PRASAD, Senior S.C for lncome Tax [OPUC] 5- Two CD CoPies //TRUE COPY// To, MP GdP HIGH COURT DATED:2710312024 ./, tE s o$' rA r.. ct., .- / o '/ e J o o I 3 1 lllAY 2024 J * ,6:it,AI DER WP.No.7836 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS p "