GVK Transportation Private Limited V. Union of India

WP/27338/2022

AI Insights

GVK Transportation Private Limited filed a writ petition challenging the notices issued by the Income Tax Department under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2018-19. The petitioner argued that the notices were issued without following the amended provisions of the Act, which came into effect on April 1, 2021, requiring such proceedings to be conducted in a faceless manner and after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The respondents did not dispute the applicability of the amended provisions but argued that there were other objections raised by the petitioner. The court, referencing a previous judgment on a similar issue, allowed the writ petition, quashing the notices on the grounds of jurisdictional error.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 687015 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 16-10-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Kankanala Ravindra Reddy vs. The Income Tax Officer and others
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: B MUKHERJEE; B SAPNA REDDY
• Assessee Lawyers: NAGA DEEPAK
• Keywords: Faceless assessment; Income Tax; Jurisdiction; Limitation; Mandamus; Writ petition
• Section: 148; 148A; 226

Judgement Text

"[ 3386 ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) IVONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITION NO:27338 OF 2022 Between: GVK Transportation Private Limited, a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 156-1 59, Paigah House, Sardar Patel Road, Paradise, Secunderabad- 500 003, Telangana, lndia, represented by its Director, Sri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, S/o. Madan Gopal Singh, aged about 59 years, Rl/o. Flat No. 209, Shreya Towers, Sree Vensai Pdect, Kompally, Hyderabad, Telangana. ...pETt,oNER AND 1. Union of lndia, represented by its Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi -1 10001 . 2. Additional/ JoinV Deputyi Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, National Faceless e-Assessment Centre, Delhi. 3. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2('l ), Room No. q14, 5th Floor, Signature Towers, Sy. No. 6(P) of Kondapur, Sy. No. 37(P) of Kothaguda, Opp. Botanical Gardens, Serilingampally (M), Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500084. ...REspoNDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, direction or order more particularly in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the order bearing DIN No. ITBA/AST/F/148412022- 2311042955243(1) dated 05-05-2022 and consequent notice bearing DIN No. ITBA/AST/S/148_112022-2311042955504(1) dated O5-O5-2O22 passed by Respondent No. 3 as being barred by limitation, arbitrary, illegal, without authority of law and violative of provisions of lncome Tax Act, 1961 and consequently set aside the same .;-a lA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 pursuant to the notice bearing DIN No. lTBfu AST/S/ 148_112022-2311042955504(1) dated 05-05-2022 issued by Respondent No. 3 u/s. '148 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 lA NO: 1 OF 2023: Between: '1 . 4dditional/ JoinU Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, National Faceless e-Assessment Centre, Delhi. 2. Deputy Commissioner of lncorne Tax, Circle 2(1), Room No. 514, 5th Floor, Qignalurg T.ow91s, Sy. No 6(P) of Kondapur, Sy. No. 37(p) of Koihaguda, ' Opp. Botanical Gardens, Serilingampally (M), Ranga Reddy Oistrict, \" Hyderabad, Telangana - 500084. ....PEITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 2 & 3 AND 1 GVK Transportation Private Limited, 156-i 59, paigah House, Sardar patel Road, Paradise, Secunderabad- 500 003, represent6d by its Diiector. U-nion of tndia, reptesented by-its Secret\"ry, o\"p\"rtrEIi:PI3rt\"#i\":'illi?S,t^i of Finance' North Block' New Delhi -' t ooo''...*.''.NDENT/RES'.NDENT No. 1 2 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 be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 2910612022 in l.A. No. 1 of 2022 inW.p. No.27338 of 2022 as extended from time to iime and dismiss the present writ petition in W.P. No. 27 338 of 2022 with costs Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI NAGA DEEPAK, COUNSEL FOR M/s. R. S. ASSOCIATES Counsel forRespondent No.'l: SRI B. MUKHERJEE, COUNSEL FOR SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDlA Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 & 3: Ms. B. SAPNA REDDY, COUNSEL FOR Ms. K. MAMATA, SR. SC FOR TNCOME TAX The Court made the following: ORDER .,7 'i,.' THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI WSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY W.P.No.27338 of 2022 ORDER: (per Hoa'ble Si Justice P.SAM KOSHfi) Heard Mr. Naga Deepak, learned counsel representing M/s. R.S. Associates, for the petitioner; Mr. B. Mukherjee, learned Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of Mr. Gadi praveen Kumar, learned Dy. Solicitor General of India, for the 1\"t respondent; and Ms. B.Sapna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department appearing on behalf of Ms. K. Mamata, for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Perused the entire record. 2, The instant writ petition has been liled by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated O5.O5.2O22 in DIN & Notice No.ITBA/AST /F 1148A/2022- 2311042955243(1) issued under Clause (d) of Section 148A of the Income Tax Act (for short, \"the Act\") and also the notice dated o5.O5.2O22 in DIN & Notice No.ITBA/AST lS / 148_! /2022- 2311042955504(2) under Section 148 of the Act by the lst respondent for the Assessment Year 2Ol8-19. 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 frorn OI .O4 .2021, tlre respondents, while proceeding under Section 148 of the Act, were required to issue notice 2 under Section 148A and provide an opportunit5r of hearing to the assessee. As per the amended provision of law, the proceedings to be drawn are also in a faceless manner. 4. 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 Kankanala Ravindra Reddy vs. The Income Tax OIIicer and othersr wherein this Court disposed of the batch of writ petitions to the limited extent. 5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Department does not dispute that the saici 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 aiso which the petitioner has raised in the writ petition. 6. 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 No.37 which is reproduced herein under: \"37. The preliminary objection raised. bg the petttioner is sustained and all these urit petitions stands allowed. on is uery Jurisdictional issue. Since the impugned notices and orders qre ' wP.No.2s9o3 of 2022 & batch dated 14.09.2023, (D.8.) I 3 gelting quashed on the point of juisdictio4 ue are not incltned. to proceed further dnd decide th\", other issues raised bg tle petitioner which stands reserued to appropiate proceeding s. \" be raised and contend.ed\" in an 7. In view of the sarne, 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. 8. As has been held by this Bench in the aforesaid batch matters, the right of the respondents would stand reserved as is envisaged at paragraph No.37 of the said order passed in the batch of writ petitions. No order as to costs. 9. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. To, SD/-N. SRIHARI ASSISTANUTEGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/I q SECTION OFFICER 1. The Secretary, Department of Revenue' tVlinistry of Finance, Union of lnida, North Block, New Delhi -'1 10001 . 2. fhe Additional/ Joinu Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, National Faceless e-Assessment Centre, Delhi. e. ffre Oeputy Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle 2(f, Room N.o.514, Sth - Fioor Sionature Towers. Sv. No. 6(P) of Kondapur, Sy. No' 37(P) of t