Endeavour Technologies V. The Union of India

WP/33105/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Endeavour Technologies, the petitioner, challenging the legality of an order and notice issued by the Income Tax Department under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that the proceedings were not conducted in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act, which mandate faceless assessments and proper notice under section 148A. The respondents included various officials from the Income Tax Department and the Ministry of Finance. The court's decision referenced a similar case to determine the outcome, leading to the allowance of the writ petition and the quashing of the contested order and notice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 724744 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 06-12-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: W.P.No.3Of 53 of 2023, W.P.No.25903 of 2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR; T SUNDARI PISUPATI
• Assessee Lawyers: P SOMASHEKAR REDDY
• Keywords: Faceless assessment; Illegal order; Income Tax; Void ab initio; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 148; 148A(d)

Judgement Text

"Between: Endeavour Technologies, 'l-5511931D-2, CMC Layout, Near pearl Village, Kondapur, Hyderabad-500084 Telangana, lndia ...PETITIONER The Union of lndia, Ministry of Finance Rep. By its Secretary 166-8 North Block, New Delhi- 1 \"10001 lncome Tax Officer, Ward B(1), 6th Floor Signature Towers, Opp. Botanical Gardens, Kondapur Serilingimpally Mandal, R. R. District, Hyderabad' Telangana 500081 The P-rincipal Commissioner of lncome Tax-|, lncome Tax Towers, Masab Tank, Hyderabad, Telangana 500004 Nationai Faceless Asse-ssment Centre, Income Tax Department Ministry of Finance Government of lndia New Delhi ...RES'ONDENTS HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION NO: 33105 OF 2023 AND ,1 2 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 i. lssue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly, one, in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the Order passed by the Respondent No.2 dated 3OlO7 t2O22. u/s 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the notice issued by the Respondent No.2uls. 148 of the lncome Tax Act' 1961 dated 30-07-2022 as illegal, bad in law, void ab initio, being violative of the provisions of lncome Tax Acl 1961 and Articles 14,19 and 265 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently, (ii.)Set aside the Order passed by Respondent No.2uls. 148A(d) and the Notice issued u/s. 148 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 dated 3010712022 calling for the return of income of the Petitioner for AY. 2014-l5 and any consequent proceedings as lacking in jurisdiction. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. P. SOMA SHEKAR REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR Dy. SOLICITOR GEN. OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2to4: M/s. T. SUNDARI PISUPATI , SENIOR SC FOR INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT J 4 The Court made the following: oRDER I [ 337e ] l : I i I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY THE HoNouRABLE \"*Tir\"rr\"E N.T,r{ARAMJT WRIT PETITION No.331osoF 2023 ORI)ER:(per Hon'ble S)1 .,ru.slr.ce .P.S,4 M IV_ i ' When the matter is taken up for hearing today, it has been informed by the parties that an identical Writ petition i.e., W.P.No.3O153 of 2023 has already been allowed and disposed of l I l l I I HIGH COURT DATED:0611212023 ORDER ALLOWTNG THE WRITPETITION WITHOUT COSTS 14 ( o c E z rul * * 1HE S Or-. ,rl TCHEq GeF- WP.No.33105 of 2023 o 22 DEC 2n6 G?*9*6* taP' ' Heard Mr. A.V.A. Siva Kartikeya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. B. Sapnzr Reddy, learned Junior Standing Counsel for Income Tax appearing for the respondents. perused the entire record. / THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSIIY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY W.P. Ne. 3OtS3 of 2O23 ORDER:1pcr ,lo r't)it ::.tt !,,...1,-,- p.SAM Kos{y) 2. The instant petition has been filed challenging the Assessment Order passed by rcspondcnt No. I under section 14gA{d} of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ,,the Act,,) dated 25.04.2022 for the Assessment Year 2018- 19. 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 0 i.O4.2021, the respondents while proceeding under Scction 148 of the Act were required to issue notice under Section l48A 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. Whereas, it has been contended by the petitioner that in the instant case, reopening has been initiated by thc Juridictional Assessing Officer. In respect of the said objection that the petitioner had raised, he reried upon the recent batch of writ 2 petitions decided by this very Bench on 14.Og.2023 vide W.P.No.25903 of 2O22 and batch to the limited extent 4. Learned counsel for the Department would having decided the said objection in the aforesaid not dispute of 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 Department is concerned, this Bench, while disposing of W.P.No.259O3 of 2022 and batch had taken note of the same in paragraph Nos.37 & 3g which is reproduced herein under: .9r: tn: preliminary oL,jecrion raised by rhe petirioner rs sustained and all these wrir netir;^.. \";--^\":'^,,1..' ,t'\"'fy .;,'i\"arciio.,.i-i\"1';;:'i:;:\",f :':['J\"\"-::Tl,il:';\",J'::..:.:iH,:X getting quashed on the Doinr or jr.i\"ai.ti_.,,'r,;;;.:r;l ,\"rjiiin.o ,o proceed furlher and jecide rhe orht.r ,\".r.l .ui\".a'.,iy ,t. peLitioner which stands reserved to b\" ,arsei -ar,*J .;;',':,il.; ,. ,\" appropriate proceedings.\" 38. Since the Hon'ble Suoreme Court had, in the case ofAshish Agarwal, supra, as , o.,.-_ti ,.ra.. e.tr.tL l+z- \"i ,t . ;1t^.I:-1:'* ,cxercising the powers Revenue a o....ia\",.\"a'i. lSntt't't'on of lndia' permilted the c.\" \",ir\"*i,i'e i;; ;. ; i ;; : ::'ry ::til,X 1;'. JJ;Ii H; il.. .,,#: conferred on the Revenrre would *-ri\" ..\".,I,.i*io'o.o\"..a funher if they so wanr from rhe \",ug. orin\" \".0-.. .r\",nl \"Ir__. Court in the case of Ashish 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 unamended provision which is otherwise not sustainable. i I q 5'- I l j i 3 r As has been held by this Bencf in the afbresaid batch matters, the right of the respondents would stand reserved as is envisaged in paragraph Nos.37 & 38 of the said batch. No order as to costs. 7. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. P.SAM KOSHY, J LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J .v Dated:30.1O.2023 aqs t ) li tt I I I I i i "