Bhandaru Srikanth Rao V. The National Faceless Assessment Center, Income-tax Department, New Delhi, India and Income Tax Officer, Ward 14 '1 Hyderabad and The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Government of India, New Delhi

WP/25118/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Bhandaru Srikanth Rao, the petitioner, challenging the legality of notices and reassessment orders issued by the Income Tax Department under Sections 148A(d) and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that these actions were void, illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction, violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The court referenced a common order in a batch of writ petitions, W.P.No.25903 of 2022, which had already addressed similar issues, leading to the decision to set aside the impugned notices and orders.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 798566 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 12-09-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Ashish Aganral vs. Revenue
• 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, Section 151 CPC, Finance Act, 2021
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: BOKARO REDDY; GADI KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: M DEEPAK
• Keywords: Arbitrary; Illegal; Reassessment order; Set aside; Violate of Article 14; Void; Without jurisdiction; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 148; 151; 148A(d)

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO Department 134111 Ministry . of Finance ..:RESPONDEN'TS Between: AND Bhandaru Srikanth Rao, S/o. Bhandaru Prabhaker Rao Aged about 48 years, Blg H No- 3-4-52617, F-'l .03 Kaveri Enclave, Barkatpur:a, Hyderabad, Telangana 500027. ...PETITIONER 1. The National Faceless Assessment Center, lncome-tax Department, New Delhi, lndia 2. lncome Tax Officer, Ward 14 '1 Hyderabad 3; The Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Governinent of lndia New,Delhi . Petition under Article 226 of th'e 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 dated 18-03-2023 under Section 148A(d) bearing DIN and Notice No. ITBA/ASTlFl141Al2022-23l'1050949089(1), the consequent notice dated 18-03-2023 u/s. 148 bearing |TBA/AST/S/14B_1t2022- 2311050949170(1)and the reassessment order dated 31-01-2024 bearing ITBA/AST/S/147 12023-2411 060334080(1 ), as being void, illegat, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, violate of Article 14 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently set aside the same WRIT PETITION NO: 25118 OF 2024 i I i l I IANO:1O F 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that rn the circumsternces stated in the affidavit filed in s rpport of the petition' the High Court may be Srleased to stay all further proceedingts including collection of tax pursuant to reassessment order dated 31 -01 -2024 bearing ITBA/AST/Si1 47 12023-241 1060334080(1 ) Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI' M' NAGA DEEPAK Counsel for the Respondent Nos' 1&2: Ms' BOKARO SAPNA REDDY (Jr' SC FOR INCOME TAX) counselfor the Respondent No'3: sRlGAD| i,ttr%=-tt[HS^t oF tNDtA The Court made the following: ORDER TIIE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICD SUJOY PAI'L AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAIUAVARAPU RAJESHIVAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.25118 OF 2o24 ORDER: (per Hon'ble Justice Sujog Paul) Heard Sri M. Naga Deepak, learned counsel for the petitioner(s), Ms. B. Sapna Reddy, learned Junior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department, for the respondent(s)- Income Tax Department and Sri B. Mukherjee, learned counsel representing Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor Genera,l of India, for the respondent(s)- Central Government. 2. The ground taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner(s) is tha[ in furtherarce of Finance Act, 2021, re- assessment process stood modilted but the respondents have not taken care of it and therefore, notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. Since notice is bad in law, the consequential orders are a-1so bad in law. 3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the parties agreed that curtains on this issue are ltnally drawn by this Court in a batch of writ petitions, W.P.No.259O3 of 2022 : i I I 2 and other c,)nnected matters, decided by common crder dated 14.09.i1O23. The parties agreed that this mattcr meqy be disposecl of ir terms of the Common Order dated 14 09'2)23' 4. This Crurt in the said order dated 14 09 2023 W.P.No.2590I of 2022, held as under: \"35- :n view of the afotesaid aliscussions, it is by now very clear that the Procedute to be fouowed by t_hc respoldent_ Dcpartmcot upou treatidg the aotrces issued for reassessmeat being under section 148A, the subsequent Proceediags was mandatorily required to be undertakes uader the subsututed provisiorls as laid doEn undet the Finalce Act, 2021' Itr the abseDce of which, we are coostrai.aed to hold that the procedure adopted by the resPondent_DepartEent is in contraveotion to the statute i.e. the Fillalce Act,2O21, at the frrst iDstance. Seco[dly, it ls also ln direct co[travention to the directives issued by the Hoa'ble SuPreme coult in the case ,f Ashish Atarqral, suPra. 36. For aU the aforesald reasotrs, the iEpugEed Eouces issued atrd the proceedlEgs dres! by thc resPondert-DepartEent is Eeitber telrable, nor sustaiaable. The lotrces so issued aEd the procedure adoPted beiBg per se lllegal' deserses to be and are accordingly set aslde/quashed. As a consequencc' all the idpugEed ordets getung quashed, the co[sequential olders passed by the resPordent DeParb[ent pursuallt to the notices issued under Sectioo 147 and 148 eould also get quashed and it is ordered accotdingly. The rcasoE we are quashi[g the consequential otder is o[ the princiPles tlat whcn tie iditiatioD of the Proceediats itself was ptocedurally wrotrg' thc subsequent orders also Sets qlrllified autooatrcally. 37. The pretiElnary objection raised by tlle Petitioner is sustaiaed and all these ![rit petiuotrs sta.Eds allowed on tlis very jurisdictlonal issue' Since the i.Epug[ed notices ard orde6 are getting quashed oa the Polnt ofiurisdiction, we are not incliaed to Proceed further aod declde thG other issues mised by the petltlonet which staads re6erved to be raised aqd conteuded ia a.a apPropriate proceediags. i I l i 3 38. Since thc llo!'ble SuPrede Court had' ia the cese of Ashish Aganral' suPra, as a one-tiEe Eeasure exercisirA tlle powets uader Arttcle 142 of the CoastitutioE of Irdia' perEitted the Reveauc to Proceed under the substituted provisiors, arrd this Court alloqdng the Petitions only or the procedural llaw, tie right coderted oa ttre Reveoue would reEai! aeserved to proceed firrther if they so want froE the stage of the order of the Supreme Court ill the case of Ashish Agatsal, supra. 39. No order as to costs.\" 5. In view of the consensus arrived, the impugned Show Cause notice and consequential orders passed in this writ petition are set aside. Liberty is reserved to both the parties to take respective stand and to proceed in accordalce u'ith 1aw as per paragraph No.38 of the order dated 14.09.2O23 in W.P.No.259O3 of 2022. 6. The Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Interlocutory applications, if .any pelQ13s, :lf4t4:g_Cte4.9lo:9d, ., - SD/- P. PADMANABHA R ASSISTANT REGIS DY RAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION FICER 1. The National Faceless Assessment Center, lncome-tax Department, New Delhi, lndia 2. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 14 'l Hyderabad 3. The Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department Ministry of Finance Government of India New Delhi 4. lncome Tax Officer, Ward 14(1), Hyderabad 5. The Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department [r4inistry of Finance, Government of lndia, New Delhi 6. One CC to SRl. M. NAGA DEEPAK, Advocate [OPUC] T One CC to Ms BOKARO SAPNA REDDY (Jr SC FOR INCOIVE TAX)[OPUC] 8. One CC to SRl. GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DY. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF rNDtA [OPUC] 9. Two CD Copies To, BM GJP l l l l l l l i HIGH COURT DATED:1210912024 ORDER WP.No.2S118 ot 2024 ALLOWING THE WRITPETITION WITHOUT COSTS . ,. : ),[ { r !. i "