Gangadhar Reddy Somala V. Union of India

WP/16465/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Gangadhar Reddy Somala, the petitioner, challenging an assessment order issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad. The petitioner argued that the assessment was conducted under the unamended provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is not sustainable. The respondents included the Union of India and its financial authorities. The court examined whether the assessment order complied with the amended procedural requirements of the Act, which came into effect on April 1, 2021, mandating faceless assessments and proper issuance of notices under Section 148A.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 686011 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 03-01-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Ashish Agarwal
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: GADI KUMAR; B SAPNA REDDY
• Assessee Lawyers: KAILASH P S S
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Faceless assessment; Jurisdictional issue; Writ of Certiorari
• Section: 147; 148; 148A(d); 148A; 226

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI [ 337e ] years, Occ. Pvt. bad, Telangana- ...PETITIONER ,1 ' ;wRtT PET|TTON NO.16465 0F 2023 Gangadhar Reddy Somala, S/o S. Pulla Reddy, Aged about 33 Employee 4th Floor, MIG 59, Dharmareddy Colony, KPHB, Hydera 500072. Between: AND 1. 2. 3 Union of lndia, Rep. by its Finance Secretary, New Delhi. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Mayur Bhawan, Connaught Lane, Barakhamba, New Delhi, Delhi-1 10001 . Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle- 5(1), Room No.224, l.T.Towers, A.C.Guards, Hyderabad-500004. ...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, order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of certiorari to call for the records of assessment order dated 27.O5.2O23 with DIN ITAB/AST/S/14712023-2411053237296(1) issued by the 2nd respondent under Section 147 for assessment year 2016-17, and quash the same as the same is illegal and contrary to the provisions of the lncome Tax Act, 196'1 . lA NO: 2 OF 2023 Petition under Sbction 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 recovery and penalty proceedings pursuant to the impugned assessment order dated 27.O5.2O23 with DIN ITAB/AST/S/14712O23- 2411053237296(1) issued by the 2nd respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KAILASH NATH P. S. S. Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF lNDIA Counsel for the Res ndent No.2 & 3: Ms. B. SAPNA REDDY, JUNIOR STANDING COUNSEL FOR INCOME TAX The Court made the following: ORDER / THE HONOURABLE SRI WSTICE P.SAIIT KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUI{ARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.16465 OF 2023 ORDPR:(per Ho n'ble Si Justice P-SAM KOSH'I) Heard Mr. Kailash Nath P.S.S., learned counsel for the petitioner ald Ms. B. Sapna Reddy, learned junior 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'2 under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 196 1 (hereinafter referred to as \"the Act\") dated 27 'O5'2O23 for the Assessment Yeat 2016 17 . 3. One of the contentions that the petitioner has raised in the present Writ Petition is that under the amended provisions of the Act ',r'hich 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 opportuniry of hearing to the assessee. As per the amended provision of law, the i 1 I 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 objection 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.25903 of 2022 and batch to the limited extent. 4. [e arned counsel for the Depa_rtment would not dispute of having decided the 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, while disposing of said batch of writ petitions, had taken note of the same at paragraph Nos.37 & 3g which are reproduced herein under: V 3 1 t t \"37. TIE preliminary objection raised by the petitioner is sustained and oll tlrcse writ petitions stands allouted on this uery juisdictional issue. Since tle impugned noties ani orders are getting qta.shed on tle point of juisdiction, u)e are not inclined to proceed furth'er and -decide the other issues raised by the petitioner uhich stands reserued to be raised and contended in an appropriate proceedings - \" \"38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in tLe case of Ashi.sh Aganual, supra, os a one-time measure ixercbing tLe powers under Article 142 of the Constituion of India, permitted the Reuenue to proceed under the substituted prouisions, and this Court allotaing the petitions onlg on tlle procedural Jlau, tte right confened on the Reuenue would remain reserued ti proceea lurther if theg so uont from the stage of the order of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarual, suPra.\" I I 6. In view of the same, lve are inclined to allow the present writ petition also on similar terms' Accordingly, the present Writ Petition stands allorved 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 w'hich is otherwise not sustainable' As has been held by this Bench in the aforesaid batch matters, the rights of the parties r', ould stand reserved as is envisaged at paragraph Nos.37 & 38 of the said order passed in the said batch of u'rit petitions. No order as to -/' I I 4 1 j I ! I I To, 4. One CC to SRI 5. One CC to SRI IoPUCI 6 7. Two CD Copies MP GJ 1- The Finance Secretary, Union of lndia, New Delhi_ 2. The Nationat FaJebss A Ba rakhamba, ru\"w o\"rr, iitSltrriii:3tfiil\"\"' Mavu r B hawan' con na ught La ne, ' I+?#:'[:T:8:j:[s,'iii.x,.,*[B3['fol,,' circre- 5( 1 ), Room No 224, costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- V.KAVITHA //TRUE COPY// ASStSTANT RE STRAR sEcTtoN o FICER I KAILASH NATH p. S. S., Advocare tOpUCl baOt pRnVeeN KUMAR, Deputy Soticitor Generat of tndia 3&\"r3? to Ms' B. SAPNA REDDY, Junior Standing counset for tncome Tax H,,,.*,#*iah'. i ) I + l I HIGH COURT DATED:0310112024 1$E STAI€ ( o .J 2 I JAN 202[ ( !- -L * DE\":, ORDER WP.No.16465 of 2023 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS .-. t @ rryul 6st- I I I i I I "