Rajeswari Lingampally V. Office of The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1

WP/7841/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Ajeswari Lingampally, the petitioner, challenging an assessment order passed by the Income Tax Authorities for the assessment year 2016-17. The order determined her total income as Rs. 60,47,919, which she contested as arbitrary and illegal, claiming it violated principles of natural justice and was without jurisdiction. The petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus to set aside the assessment order. The court examined whether the assessment was conducted following the amended provisions of the Income Tax Act, which mandate a faceless procedure and an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 762837 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: WP No.25903 of 2022 & batch
• Laws Referred To: Constitution of India, Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SUNDARI PISUPATI; B MUKERJEE
• Assessee Lawyers: THANNERU KUMAR
• Keywords: Faceless assessment; Income Tax; Jurisdiction; Natural Justice; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 148A; 265; 226

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Speciat Originat Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT . THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI [ 337e ] pation. Nagar, PAN. WRIT PETITION No.7841 0F 2024 AND 1. Between: [ajeswari Lingampally, W/o -L-i1-gamoally Rajeeru, Aged about 45 years Occu Business, R/o.H. No. - 5-6-1 $tdt l t AtBri, A'Un,roli,\" Lvothinagir, ?riin,i- 9gnqqeqtL\", A.p. Cotony, Karimnagar, -i- d\"dr# _ 505215, tndia. AlLPL6716F Assessment ydar: 2O16-17\" ...PETITIONER Office of The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle_1, Karimnagar Telangana State. The PrincipalCtrief Commissioner of lncome Tax _ Telangana and A.p, Hyderabad, tT Towers, AC Guards, wasab Tani,.UvOeraUiJ'l SO0 b)'8: Telangana. 3. The centrar Board of Direct raxes, Represented by its chairman, Department of Revenue. Minisrrv o[ Finance. Governmeni .iti,oli, s\"iii\"G;\"I\"Bfikiift !, New Delhi - 1 10 00 i 4. The Nationar Faceress Assessment center, rncome Tax Department, New Delhi. 5. The Union of lndia, Represente-d_ by its Secretary to the Government, Department of Revenue, lr/inrstry of Finance, ruew Oetnl - i f O OOf . - --\"\"\"-\" ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 of rhe constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit frred therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particurarry one in the nature of writ of Mandamus decraring the order passed by the rncome Tax Authorities (National Faceless E-Assessment centre completed the assessment u1147 rlw Section 144-8 of the rncome Tax Act, 1961 vide DrN and Notice No. 2 dated 21-O2-2O24 in ITIAJAST lsl147l2O23- 2411061269187 ( 1 ) for the assessment yeat 2016-17 determining the total income of Rs. 60,47,919/- as arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, without jurisdiction, void-ab-initio, violative of the principles of natural from being violative of Articles ta, t9(tXg) and 265 of the of lndia and Sec. 148A of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, and consequently set aside the same in the interests of justice' Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR Counsel forthe Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: Ms. SUNDARI R. PISUPATI' SENIOR S.C. FOR INCOME TAX Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 to 5: SRI B. MUKERJEE' REPRESENTING SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following: ORDER iustice apart Constitution : : I i : ! I ; I i i i t I I I I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSI{Y AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITIoN No.7841 OF 2o24 ORDER:(per Hon'ble Si Justice P.SAM KOSfiY) The instant Writ Petition has been fited by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the following reliel \"...to issue an appropiate uit order or direction more partiatlarlu one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declainq the order passed by the Income Tox Authoities Notional Faceless E-Assessment Centre completed the assessment U/ 147 r/u Section 1448 of tlte Incorne Tax Act 1961 uide DIN and Notice No. dated 21.o2.2024 in ITBA/AST/ S/ 147/ 2o2s- 24/ 1061269187(1) for the assessment Uear 2016-17 detennitinq the total income of Rs 60,47,919/- as arbitranl illeqal bad in latu utithout juisdiction uoid-ab- irritio uiolatiue of the principles of natural .iustice apart frorn beinq uiolatiue of Articles H, 19(1)(9) and 265 of the Constitution of India and Sec 148A of the Income Tal Act 1961, and consequentlll set aside the same in the iterests of justice and pass...\" 2. Heard Mr. Thanneru Chaitanya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. Sundari R. Pisupathi, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. B. Mukerjee, learned ( z counsel representing Mr' Gadi Praveen Kumar' learned Deputy Solicitor General of India' for respondent No'5 and Perused the record' 3. One of the contentions that the petitioner has raised in the present Writ Petition is that under the amended of tl.e Act which came into effect from i i : provrslons o1.o4.2021, the respondents, while proceeding under ! i ! i ( E T ; ! I I I I t I t t i i 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, learned counsel for the petitioner has been contended that, in the instant case' reopenrng initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer' In support of his contention, he relied upon the recent 'iudgment rendered by this very Bench in WP'No'25903 of 2022 & batch, dated t4.Og'2O2g 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 -7 3 objection was decided in the aforesaid batch of Writ Petitions. However, he further contended that apart from 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 leamed 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. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner is sustained and all these wit petitions stands allowed on thb uery juisdictional issue. Since the impugned notices and ord.ers are getting quashed on the point of jurisdiction, u)e dre not inclined to proceed further and -decide tle otler issues raised by the petitioner uhich stands reserued to be raised and contended in an appropriate proceeding s. \" '38. Sine the Hon'ble Supreme CourT had, in the case of Ashish Agaruta supra, as a one-time measure exerci.sing tle pouers under Article 142 of the Constttution of India, pennitted the Reuenue to proceed under the substituted prouisions, and this Court ollouing the petitions only on the procedural Jlau4 the right anfered on the Reuenue uould remain resen)ed to proceed further if tlleA so want from the stage of the order of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashkh Agarua supro.\" I ( ( l I I 4 7 . In view of the same, we are inclined to allow the present writ petition also on similar terms. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition stands altowed on the objection of the To, petitioner that the proceedings have not been d rawn in accordance with the amended provision but under the un-arnended 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 & 3g of the sard order passed in the batch of writ petitions. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. . ^l SD/-V.KAVIT //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGIS AR SECTION FFICER '1 Ttre-Assrslanl Commissioner of lncome Tax Circle-1, Karimnagar, Telangana 2. The Prrncrpal Chief Com.misgioner of lncome Tax _ Ielangana and A.p.. ?Jfl\"\"81# rr rowers, nc Guiiosi'rra;;;ij'i,,i., Hyd;;;i;;;'\" toi ?ia. 3 The Chlrirman. Central. Boa.rd .of . Direct Taxes, Deparlment o[ Revenue y;A;,61 of Frnance, Government of rnoii, S.iiiiirirt Buitdinss, New Dethi l 4 Theh National Faceless Assessment Center, lncome Tax Department, New 5 The Secretary to the Government, Department ot Revenue. t ,4rnistry of Frnance. Unron of lndia, New Delhi- i 10 0.0;\"\"'\"\"' ' One CC ro SRt THANNERU CHA|TANYA KUMAR, Advocare tOpUCl One CC to Ms SUNDARI R plSUpATl, Senior S.C. for tncome Tax [OpUCJ ffir3? to SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, Deputy Soricilor Generat of tndia Two CD Copies t) 7 8 I MP HIGH COURT PSK,J & NTR,J DATED:2710312024 r E sl + o ( t q l [ 6 Jl,jN 2l24 c o 'a. , ir t*. I I DFe nar CB. .v ORDER WP.No.7841 ot 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITTON WITHOUT COSTS 1 ge "