Dinesh Raya Mandi Bazar V. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

WP/2874/2024

AI Insights

The case involves a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the validity of an order and a consequential notice issued under the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2015-16. The petitioner contended that the notices were issued under the unamended provisions of the Act, which required a hearing and were to be conducted in a faceless manner as per the amended provisions effective from April 1, 2021. The court referenced a previous batch of writ petitions where similar issues were addressed, leading to the decision to allow the current petition based on jurisdictional flaws in the issuance of the notices.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 796078 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 05-02-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Ashish Agarwal case
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: J V PRASAD
• Assessee Lawyers: DUNDU MANMOHAN
• Keywords: Faceless assessment; Income Tax; Natural Justice; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 148; 148A

Judgement Text

",\"Jli I + [ 337e ] URT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA tt I ATHYDERABAD || f tsneciat original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWb TgousRND AND TWENTY FoUR II I PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY ,,re rlblounnele sAf:?usrcE N.T,KARAMJT I i I I I i i 'l passed u/s 148A( f the Act vide DIN No. ITBA/AST/F/148N2O22- 2311042833266(1) it P-1 ) and the consequential notice u/s '148 dt. 2510412022 vide DIN ITBA/AST/S/1,[8 1 12022- 231 1 042834481 (1 ), issued by instead of FAO(3rd respondent), as void, illegal, and s of lncome-tax Act and contrary to the Principles of the JAO(1st respon contrary to the prov Natural Justice I Venurao Colony, ...PETITIONER :2874 Between: Dinesh Raya Mandi Bazar, o 1 . lncome Tax Complex, Opp , S/o Damod har Fayabara pu, 14-1-'193, 5O6002 Rep. by GPA Holder 2. The Princi Block, l.T. , Ward 1, Warangal, D.No. 1-8-610, 3rd Floor, Mayuri PDCL Bhawan, Nakkalagutta, Hanamkonda, Warangai Commissioner Of lncome Tax Ap And Ts, 1Oth FIoor,C 0-2-3, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad- 500004 Unit, lncome Tax Department, National Faceless 3. The As Assessment circumstances s Ramp, JawaharlAl Delhi, Ministry of Finance, Room No. 4O1,2nd Floor, E- ehru Stadium, Delhi-l 10003 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under cle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, rder or direction. more particularly one in the nature of ng the impugned order.dt. 2410412022 for A.Y. 2015-16 i I I I 1 Petition unde ion 15'l CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed i port of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further s pursuant to the notice u/s ,l48 dt. 25104/2022 vide DIN No. lTBA/AS 48 112022- 23t1O42834481(1) issued by the 1st Respondent(JAO) il 4 I { i pass such other o interests of substa irreparable loss and . 2015-16 instead of 3'd as the Hon'ble Court d nl,l, ustice, as otherwise the respondent(FAO), and may eems fit and proper in the Petitioner would be put to ) re injury. Counsel for the SRI. DUNDU MANMOHAN ,i Counsel for the nts: SRI J. V. PRASAD (SC FOR TNCOME TAX) The Court made the : ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI WSTICE N.TUKARAMJI trIRIT PETITION No.2874 OF 2024 ORDER:(per Hon'ble Si Justice P.SAivI KOS,HY) The instant Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the following reliel \"to issue a Writ of Mandamus or ang other appropriate Writ Order or Direction d.eclaing the impugned order dated 24.O4.2022 for A.Y.2015-16 passed 148A(d) of the Act uide DIN. No. ITBA/ ASr/ F/ 1 48A/ 2022 -23/ 1 042833266( 1 ), ond the consequential notice u/s 148 dated 25.04.2022 uide DIN.No.ITBA/ AST/ S/ 148J 2022-23/ 1042834481(1), issued bg JAO(l\", respondent) instead of FAO (Y respond.ent) as orbitrary illegol bad in lau.t uoid-ab-initio violatiue of the principles of natural and. anseqtentlg set aside the same in the interests of justice\" - 2. One of the contentions that the petitioner has raised in the present Writ Petition is that under ttre amended provisions of the Act which came 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 ---7 2 PSK,J & ]VI:R,J W.P.No.2874 oJ 2024 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.259O3 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, there have been other various objections also which the petitioner has raised in the writ petition. 5. So far as this contention of the learned counsel for the respondent-Depa-rtment is concerned, this Bench, while disposing of said batch of writ petitions, had taken note of il 3 PSr,J& irr&J W.P.No,2874 o:f 2024 the same at paragraph Nos.37 & 3g which are reproduced herein under ?7. fhe preliminary objection raised. by the petitioner i.s sustained and all these u,trtt petitions itands allowed on this uery jurisdictional issue. Since the impugned ?oty-? and. orders are getting qua\"shed_ on the point of jurisdiction, u)e are not inclined. to proceed further and. decide tle other issues roised bg the petitioner tuhich stands reserued to be raised and contend.ed in an appropriate proceeding s. \" '38. Sine the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in tle q.se of Ashish Agarutal, supra, as a one-ttme measure exercising the pouters under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, permitted the Reuenue to pioeed. under tle substituted prouisions, and. this Court ollouting the petitions onlg on tle procedural ftaut, the righl confered on the Reuenue uould remain- reserued. to procee-d further if they so uant from the stage of the order of the Supreme Court in the case oj Ain*n Agarwal, supra.\" 6. In view of the same, we are inclined to allow the present writ petition also on similar 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. 7. As has been held by this Berrch in the aforesaid batch matters, the rights of the parties would stand reserved as is 4 PSIT,J da .M[R,J W.P.No.2874 of 2024 envisaged at paragraph Nos.37 & 38 of the saicl order passed in the batch of writ petitions. No order as t() costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. D/. P. PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR v,' SECTION OFFICER The ln No. 1-8-6'10, 3rd Floor, Mayuri Compl tta, Hanamkonda, Warangal 2. The P Tax Ap And Ts, 10th Floor,C Block, abad- 500004 3. The Assess Unit, lncome Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Ce 2nd Floor, E- , Jawahatl CC CC CD Delhi, Ministry of Finance, Room No. 401 , ehru Stadium, Delhi-1 10003 NDU MANMOHAN, Advocate [OPUC] . PRASAD (SC FOR INCOME TAX) [OPUC] To, 1 Ram 4. One 5. One 6. Two BM GJP p /ffRUE COPY// -.q HIGH COUR DATED:05/0 WP.No.2874 ALLOWING T WTTHOUT CO ORDER t l g'ut* $ ,)9 4 024 11 iF, ST{. i) rr 1 1 I'iii ;ilil ( P l.) -:. i/ /);: .: c-r', i {-l - WRITPETTTION J "