E. Ramchandra Reddy V. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Center, New Delhi and The Income Tax Officer - Ward 1, Nizamabad and The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, Hyderabad and The Central Board of Direct Taxes, Represented by its Chairman

WP/459/2024

AI Insights

The case involves E. Ramchandra Reddy, the petitioner, challenging an assessment order issued by the Income Tax Department for the assessment year 2015-16. The petitioner argued that the order was arbitrary, illegal, and violated principles of natural justice and various articles of the Constitution of India, as well as Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The main contention was that the assessment was not conducted following the amended provisions which require a faceless procedure and an opportunity for the assessee to be heard. The court referenced a previous batch of writ petitions with similar issues, which had been decided in favor of the petitioners on jurisdictional grounds.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 799646 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 08-01-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Ashish Agarwal case
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SUNDARI R PISUPATI
• Assessee Lawyers: A V A KARTIKEYA
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Faceless assessment; Income Tax; Natural Justice; Violation of Constitution
• Section: 147; 148; 144B; 148A; 265

Judgement Text

"+ [ 337e I HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION NO: 459 OF 2024 Between E. Ramchandra Reddy, aged 57 years, and 1O2, Main Road, Khaleel Wadi, ...PETITIONER AND 1. Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Center, New Delhi, Room No..401, 2nd Floor, E-Ramp,Jawaharlal Nehru Stradium, New Delhi - 110 003. 2. The lnmme Tax Officer - Ward 1, Nizamabad, lncome Tax Office, 6-2-156/3, Subhash Nagar, Nizamabad - 503 002, Telangana. 3. The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, Hyderabad Room No..922,gth Floor, B Block, l.T.Towers, 10-2- 3, AC Guards, Hyderabad - 500 004, Telangana. 4. The Central Boaid of Direct Taxes, Represented by its Chairman, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of lndia, Secretariat Buildings, New Delhi - 110 001 ...RES,.N,ENTS 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 the Assessment Order passed by the 1st Respondent, u/s 147 rlw Sec. 1448 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, dated 29.11.2023, bearing DlN.. ITBA/AST/S/14712023-2411058326956(1 ), for the Assessment Yeat 2O15 - 16, as arbitrary, illegal, barred by limitation, bad in law, void-ab-initio, violative of the principles of natural iustice, apart lrom being vrolative of Articles 14, 19(1Xg) and 265 of the Constitution of lndia and Sec 148A of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, and to consequently set aside the same rn the interests of justice Mr. Gowtham Reddy Eleti, S/o Mr 0cc.. Business, H.No-. 5-7-101 Nizamabad - 503 001, Telangana. 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 Assessment Order passed by the 1st Respondent, uls 147 r/w Sec. 1448 ot the lncome Tax Act, 1961,. dated 29.11.2023, bearing DlN.. ITBtuAST/S/14712023- 2411058326956(1), for the Assessment Year 2015 - 16, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A. V. A. SIVA KARTIKEYA Counsel forthe Respondents: M/s. SUNDARI R PISUPATI (sR sc FoR cEc AND Sr) The Court made the following: ORDER /, THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSITY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.459 0F 2024 ORDER:@erHon'ble Si Justice P-SAM KOSH {) Heard Mr. A.V.A. Siva Kartikeya, Iearned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Sundari R' Pisupati, learned Standing Counsel for Income Tax appearing for the respondents. Perused the entire record' 2. The instant Writ Petition has been filed challenging the Assessment Order passed by respondent No' 1 under Section 147 read with Section l44B ol the lncome Tax Act' 1961 (hereinaJter referred to as \"the Act\") dated 29'11'2023 for the Assessment Year 20 1 5- 16 ' 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 came into effect from Ol .O4.2021, the respondents, u'hile proceeding under Section 148 of the Act, were required to issue notice under Section 148A and provide an opportunin' of hearing to the assessee. As per tt1s amended provision of laq ' - lhe 2 proceedings to be drawn are also in a faceless manner. Whereas, it has been contended by the petitioner that in the instant case, reopening has been initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. In respect of the said objeition that the petitioner had raised, he relied upon the recent batch of writ petitions decided by this very Bench on 14.09.2023 vide W.p.No.259O3 of 2022 arrd batch to the limited extent. 4. Learned counsel for the Department would not dispute of having decided tJle said objection in the aforesaid batch matters. However, learned counsel submits 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-Department is concerned, this Bench, ',hile disposing o[ said batch of writ petitions, had taken note of the same at paragraph Nos.37 & 3g which are reproduced herein under: - 3 \"37. TIE preliminary objection raised bA tle petitioner is sustained and all these wit petitions stands alloued on this uery juisdictional issue. Since the impugned notices and orders are getting quashed on the point of jurisdiction, LUe are not inclined to proceed further and -decide the other rssues raised by the petitioner which stands resetaed to be raised and contended in an ap propriote p roceeding s. \" \"38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the case of Ashish Agarutal, supra, as a one-time measure exercising the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, permitted the Reuenue to proceed under the substituted prouisions, and this Court allouing the petitions onlg on the procedural Jlau, the right conferred on the Reuenue utould remain reserued to proceed furtler if tley so uont from the stage of the ortler of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra.\" ! I 6. In view of the sarne, we are inclined to a[[ow the present wdt petition also on similar terms. Accordingly, 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' As has been held by this Bench in the aforesard 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 said batch of writ petitions No order as to 4 To, 1. 2. 3. 4. costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. / SD/- C. PRAVEEN KUMAR ASSISTANT