Anirudh Reddy Nukala V. The National Faceless Assessment Center, Income Tax Department, New Delhi, India and Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1), Hyderabad and The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, New Delhi

WP/34493/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Anirudh Reddy Nukala, who filed a writ petition challenging the orders and notices issued under Sections 148A(d) and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2018-19. The petitioner argued that the reassessment was initiated under the unamended provisions of the Act, which is not sustainable. The respondents, including the National Faceless Assessment Center and the Income Tax Officer, defended the actions taken. The court referenced a previous judgment where similar jurisdictional issues were addressed, leading to the quashing of the notices and orders.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 691940 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 27-12-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Ashish Aganval case
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: J V PRASAD
• Assessee Lawyers: M NAGA DEEPAK
• Keywords: Assessment proceedings; Faceless assessment; Income Tax; Jurisdiction; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 148; 148A(d); 226

Judgement Text

"[ 337e ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N, TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION NO: 34493 OF 2023 Between: Anirudh Reddy Nukala, S/o. Late N Prathap Reddy, Aged about 72 years, Ryo. 239 Phase-'|, Behind IBP Petrol Bunk , Kamalapuri Colony, HYDERATOO UOO9.La.r,r,on.* ANO 1. The National Faceless Assessment Center, lncorne{ax Department, New Delhi, lndia 2. lncome Tax Officer, Ward 6 (1 ) Hyderabad 3. The Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department Ministry of Finance Govemment of lndia New Delhi ...RESPONOENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring order under Section 148A(d) dated 26-04-2022 beating DIN ITBA/AST|F|14gN2O22- 2311042852137(1), the consequent notice dated 26-04-2022 u/s. 148 bearing DIN ITBA/AST/S/148 1 12022-2311042855160(1 ) and the consequent assessment proceedings as being void, illegal, arbitrary, without lurisdiction, violate of Article 14 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently set aside the same lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petrtion. the High Court may be pleased to stay the assessment proceedings initiated pursuant to the order under Section 148A(d) dated 26- O4-2O22 bearing DIN ITBA/ASTlFl148A12022-2311042852137(1), the consequent nolice dated 26-04-2022 uls. 148 bearing DIN ITBA/ASTlst148_112022-2311042855160(1) Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M. NAGA DEEPAK Counsel for Respondents: SRI J. V. PRASAD (sc FoR rNcoME TAX) The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.34493 OF 2023 ORDER:lper Hon'ble Si Justice P.SAM KOSHY) The instant Writ Petition has been filed bv the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order issued under Section l48A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 196 1 (for short, \"the Act\") bearing DIN No.ITBA/AST lF / 148A12022-231 1o428s2737 (l ), dated 26.O4.2022 passed by respondent No. I for the assessment year 2Ol8-19 and the consequent notice under Section 148 ol the Act, dated 26.04.2022, bearing DIN No.ITBA/AST I S I r48_t / 2022-23 I 10428ss I 60 (1) 2. One of the contentions that the petitioner has raised in the present Writ Petition is that under the amended provisions of the Act which came into effcct from Ol .O4.2O21, the respondents, while proceeding under Section 148 of the Act, were required to issue notice under Section 148A and provide an opporturlit-r o[ lrearing to thc 2 PSI(,J & lVrR. W.P.No.34493 oJ 2O23 assessee. As per the amended provision of law, the proceedings to be drawn are also in a faceless manner. 3. Whereas, learned 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.25903 of 2022 & batch, dated 14.O9.2023 wherein this Court disposed of the batch of writ petitions to the limited extent. 4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Department does not dispute that the said objection was decided in the aforesaid batch of Writ Petitions. However, he further contended that apart from the aforesaid objection, therc have been other various objections also which the petitioner has raiscd in the writ petition. 5. So far as this contention ol thc learned counsel lor the respondent-Departmeut is concertted, this Bench, while disposing of said batch of s'rit petitions, had taken note of 3 PSI(,J & MTR,J W.P.No.34493 oJ 2023 the same at paragraph Nos.37 & 38 which are reproduced herein under: \"37. The preliminary objection raised by the petittoner is sustained and all tEse wit petitions sfands alloued on this uery jurisdictionol issue. Since the impugned notices and orders are getting quashed on the point of juisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed furtler and decide tlre other issues raised bg tle petitioner uthich stonds reserued to be raised and contended in an ap p ro p iate p roceeding s. \" \"38. Since tLe Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the case of Ashish Aganaal, supra, as a one-time measure exercising the pouers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, permitted the Reuenue to proceed under the substituted prouisions, and this Courl alLouting the petitions onlg on the procedural Jlaw, the right conferred on the Reuenue uould remain reserued to proceed furtter if tleg so uant from the stage of the order of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agantal, supra.\" 6. [n view of the sarne, we are inclined to allorv the present writ petition also on similar terms. Accordingll', the present Writ Petition stands allowed on the objection of the petitioner that the proceedings have not been drau'n in accordance with the amended provision but under the un amended provision which is otherwise not sustainable 7. As has been held by this Bench in the aforesaid batch matters, the rights of the parties would stand reserved as is ( 4 PSr,J&.MrA--' W.P.No.34493 oJ 2023 envisaged at paragraph Nos.37 & 38 of the said order passed in the b-atch of writ petitions. No order as to costs Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. .' SD/-8. SARASWATHI ASSISTANT GISTRAR /ffRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER to'',. ,n\" National Faceless Assessment Center' lncome{ax Department' New Delhi' lndia z. riie ini6me Tax Officer, Ward 6 1 Hyderabad . 3. The Assessment uni[]iiJiru i';'d\"p';i'\"nt ttrtinittr.v of Finance Government of lndia New Delhi 4. o;;iC 6 Sri M Naga Deepak Advocate^[oPUCl 5. il;66 6 5;i i v FiJ=\"'JiSc'ron-tNcorue rAx) Advocate [oPUCl 6. Two CD CoPies MBC GJP g HIGH COURT DATED: 2711212023 ORDER WP.No.34493 of 2023 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @tP(d >rq '-*rP* 2 7 JAN 2021 .'c TA S E r tl C 1 e q c P C, rU * "