Gaddam Rama Rao V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward (1), Kothagudem and The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Telangana and AP and The Central Board of Direct Taxes and The National Faceless Assessment Center, Income Tax Department and The Union of India

WP/2013/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Gaddam Rama Rao, the petitioner, challenging the orders and notices issued by the National Faceless E-Assessment Centre for the Assessment Year 2015-16. The petitioner argued that the assessment was conducted under the un-amended provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was not sustainable. The court referenced a previous judgment where similar issues were addressed, leading to the quashing of the notices and orders on jurisdictional grounds. The court's decision emphasized the need for adherence to the amended provisions of the law, which mandate faceless assessments and proper procedural safeguards.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 814367 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 29-01-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Ashish Agarwal vs. Revenue
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: A RADHA KRISHNA; GADI KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: THANNERU KUMAR
• Keywords: Faceless assessment; Income Tax; Jurisdiction; Natural Justice; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 147; 148; 144B; 148A; 265

Judgement Text

"[ 337e 1 HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH 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: 2013 OF 2024 Between: Gaddam Rama Rao, S/o. Narasimha Rao, aged about 58 years, Occ. Employee, Rl/o. 82, 511 , Door No.29, Tungabadhra, Aswapur BO, Aswapuram, Khammam District - 5071 16. Telangana, lndia. PAN No. AGFPR9294N ...PETrroNER AND '1 . The lncome Tax Officer, Ward (1), Kothagudem, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, Telangana State. 2. The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax Telangana and A P Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad 500 028, Telangana. 3. The Central Board of Direct Taxes, Represented by its Chairman, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of lndia, Secretariat Buildings, New Delhi - 1 10 001 . 4. The National Faceless Assessment Center, lncome Tax Department, New Delhi. 5. The Union of lndia, Represented by its Secretary to the Government, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi - 110 001. ...RESPONDENTS 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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order' or Direction, declaring the order dated 23.1 1 .2023 in DIN and Notice No. ITBAiAST/S/14712023-24t1058181647(1) for the Assessment Yeat 2O'15-16 determining the total income of Rs.40,26,4281- passed by the respondent authorities (National Faceless E-Assessment Centre, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi for the Assessment Year 2015 - 16 vide order notices lncome Tax Authorities (National Faceless E-Assessment centre completed the assessment tJtS 147 r/w Section 144-8 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961vide DIN and Notice No. lrBA/AST/s/14712023- 2411058181647(1) for the Assessment year 2o1s-16 determining the total income of Rs.4O,26,4281- as arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, without jurisdiction, void-ab-initio, violative of the principles of natural justice apart from being violative of Articles 1a,19(iXg) and 26s of the constitution of lndia and Sec.148A of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, and consequenfly set aside the same in the interests of justice. 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 suspend the order under section 147 rlw 144 (B) dated. 23.1 1.2023, including any recovery, pursuant to vide DIN & order u/s 156 lrBA/AST/s/l5612023- 241 2058181729(1) for the Assessment year 2015-16 Notice U/S 148-4 (b) dated. 23.o3.2022 in |rBA/AST/F/148-A(scNy2o21-22t104132s006 (1) and notice Under Section 148-A, (d) 01.07.O4.2022, |TBA/AST/F/'148-N2022-23- 1042646062 (1),for the Assessment Year 2016 -17 pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 4: SRI A.RADHA KRISHNA, SC FOR lT Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRt GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, Dy. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI WSTICE P.SAM KOSITY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI WSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.2O13 OF 2024 ORDER:@er Hon'ble Si Just[ce P.SAM KOSHY) The instant Writ Petition has been frled by the petitioner under Articl e 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the following relief: \"to issue o Wit of Mandamus or ang other appropiate Wit Order or Direction declaing the order dated 23 11 2O23 in DIN and Notice No ITBA/ AST/ S/ 147/ 202324/ 10581816471 for the Assessmenl Year 201516 detennining the total income of Rs.40,26,428/- passed bg the respondent authoitie s N otionaL Facele s s E-Assessment Ce ntre Ministry of Finance Neut Delhi for the Assessment Year 2O15 16 uide order notices Income Tox Authorities National Faceless E- Assessment Centre completed the a-ssessment U/ S 147 r/u Section 1448 of the Income Tax Act 1961uide DIN and Notice lvo ITBA/ ASr/ S/ 147/2023 24/ 10581816471 fo, the Assessmenf Year 2O1516 determining the total income of Rs.40,26,428/ - as arbttrary iltegal bad in lau uithout jurisdiction uoid-ab-initio uiolatiue of the pinciples of natural justice apart from being uiolcttiue of Articles 14, 19(1)(9) and 265 of the Con-stitution of India and Sec 148A of the Income Tox Act 1961 and con sequentlg 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 the amended provisions of the Act which carne into effect from O | .O4 .2021 , the respondents, while proceeding under Section 148 of the Act, were required to issue notice under ,'-) 2 PS.I(,J & / l:rE,. W.P.No.2O73 oJ 2024 Section 148A 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. 3. Whereas, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, in the instalt 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, leamed Standing Counsel for the respondent-Department does not dispute that the said objection was decided in the a_foresaid 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-Department is concerned, this Bench, while -... distrlosing of said batch of writ petitions, had taken note of PSK,J & NTR,J W.P.No.2O73 of 2024 the same at paragraph Nos.37 & 38 which are reproduced herein under: \"37. The preliminary objection raised by the petittoner is sustained and all these urit petitions stands allouted on this uery jurisdictional issue. Since the impugned notices and orders are getting quaslted on the point of jurisdiction, u)e dre not inclined to proceed further and decide the other issues raised bg the petitioner uthich stands reserued to be raised and contended in an ap propiate p ro ce e ding s. \" \"38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in tLe case of Ashish Agaruta supra, os a one-time measure exercisirtg the pou.ters under Article 142 of ttLe Constitution of Indio, permitted the Reuenue to proceed under the substituted prouisions, and this Court allouing the petitions only on the procedural Jlau-t, the right conferred on the Reuenue tuould remain reserued to proceed further if they so u-tant from the stoge of the order of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarutal, supra.\" 6. In view of the same, we are inclined to a,llow 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 Bench in the aforesaid batch matters, the rights of the parties would stand reserved as is t I ..rl 4 PS.I(,J&, xi..,J W.P.No.2O73 o.f 2024 envisaged at paragraph Nos.37 & 3g of the said order passed in the batch of writ petitions. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYII SD/- N.SRIHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAC /t -=-- SECTION OFFICER To I PSK. GJ 1 2 ilS'iif T:i, I!:#ti:ia *' \" ( 1 ), Koth as udem, Bhad rad ri Kotha g udem .r he principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax Telangana and A p iJfl:fi,+i Ir rowers, Rc cuaros, Ma;;ij'i\".r! ulolranao 500 028, #f aii,.#?,l,s\"\":'9,2\",i'#iL?[?fi::[??,\"Tpgrffi ill,:ls:{:tf b,n,. ThenNational Faceless Assessment Center, lncome Tax Department, New iE.E :??,h'[r'J,\"-:fl,'BTifl [\"] i B ?i3 ? or I nd ia, De p a rtm e nt or Reve n u e, Effi E3 3 Sfl rH^H,r,yEiffi#H.hHffi g[sr::J::ffi .. ii,?,io\"iot3,i,T' cAD I P RA Two Cb Copi6s 3 4 q ct. 7. 8. l HIGH COURT DATED:2910112024 ORDER WP.No.2013 of 2024 ( 1 '-. HE STA rC: 0 4 illAB 2024 a Srrara ur?-O * Dg * ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS. btlD heP %r "