Imuri S/o. Bhupathi V. The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax

WP/4669/2024

AI Insights

The case involves a writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the orders and notices issued by the Income Tax Department for the assessment year 2015-16. The petitioner argued that the orders were arbitrary, illegal, and violated principles of natural justice and constitutional rights. The main legal contention was that the proceedings were initiated under the unamended provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which did not comply with the amended requirements that came into effect from April 1, 2021. The court referenced a previous judgment where similar issues were addressed and decided in favor of the petitioners on jurisdictional grounds.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 795494 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 22-02-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Ashish Agarwal vs. Revenue
• 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 SIVA KARTIKEYA
• Keywords: Assessment Year 2015-16; Barred by limitation; Income Tax; Natural Justice; Void ab initio; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 148; 151; 148A(d); 148A; 265; 226

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT FOR TI AT H' (s p e c i a, ., iE,:'iiJ,[fl :;'\";^ \" \"^ - ^ THURSDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWo THoUSAND AND rweNiv p-oj*-\",. PRESENT WRIT PETITION NO:46690F2o24 lmuri. S/o. Bhupathip [ 337e ] ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENTS THE HONOURABLE SRI . ,\". \"o\"o,^;; ; ;A,{{:Iff I illxiJ] Between: Mr. Prabhakar Rao Ba 56'.{i'3.:ff;?E?,*\" #l 3,; :Elfli 3iL\"i,T$,' l\"r.ifi l?#\"_ AND 1. 2 3 #il?lii:1\"9;#H:;:::\"^i\"3.'\"^[il]?i.?,,il\"to[%r,:,R3]J?,i,T; The_ _Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax i:J:l'\"11?#,[?3:,,.ff r,yr*irix\":1\":j'q:'$,31?,.,iiixl^?;[,it1 ffi rlHihi;*tr-23,ti:.*e**fl ;ii:::ffi ffii\"t:ffi u:Ilf{; petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or Direction' decrarrnq a' the order passed by the 1 st Respondent, u/s .r 4BA(d) of the lncome Tax Act, 1961. dated Ot.O4.2O22, bearing DIN and Notice No.. rrBNASTrF114BAr2022'23r1042604771(1), for rhe Assessment year 2015 _ 16, and b' the notice issued by the 1st Respondent, uls 148 of the rncome Tax Act, 1961' dated 07.04.2022. bearing DrN and Notice No.. I'BA/AST/S/14 B_1t2022_ 2311042615048(1), for the Assessment year 2015 - .16, as arbitrary, iregar, barred by rimitation, bad in raw, void-ab-initio, viorative of the principres of naturar justice, apart from being violatrve of Artrcles 1a, 19(1)(g) and 265 of the Constitution of lndia and Sec 148A ot the lncome Tax Act, 1961, and to consequently set aside the same in the interests of justice lA NO: 'f 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 notice issued by the 1\"t Respondent, u/s l48 of the lncome Tax Act, 196 1, dated 07.04.2022, bearing DIN and Notice No.. trBA/AST/s/i4B_1t2022-23t1042615048(1), for the Assessment Year 2015 - 16, pending disposal of the above Writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. A. V. A. SIVA KARTIKEYA Counsel for the Respondents: SRI SUNDARI R PISUPATI (Sr SC for lncome Tax Dept) The Court made the following: ORDER - THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TI'I(ARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.4669 OF 2024 ORDER:/per Hon'ble Si Justice P.SAM KOSIfl) The instant Writ Petition has been frled by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the following relief: \"to i,ssue a Wit of Mondamus or ang other appropiate Writ Order or Direction declaing the impugned order dated O7.O4.2O22 ./or assessme nt Aear 2015-16 passed u/s 148A(d) of the Act uide DIN and Notice No.ITBA/ AST/ F/ 148A/2022-23/ 104260477(1) and the con sequential notice u/ s.748 of the Iname Tax Act, 1961, dated O2.O4.2O22 uide DIN and Notice No.ITBA/ AST/ S/ 148_1/ 2022-23/ 1042615048 (1), issued by respondent No.1, as uoid, iltegal, and contrary to the prouisions of lncome Tox Act and cantrary to tlrc principles of natural justice and prrss otller orders os this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper\". 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 came into effect from OL.O4.2O2l, the respondents, while proceeding under Section 148 of the Act, were required to issue notice under Section 1484, 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. 2 PSr(,J & M[A,J W.P.No.4669 of 2O24 3. Whereas, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, in the instant case, reopening has been initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Ofl-rcer. ln support of his contention, he relied upon the recent judgment rendered by this very Bench in WP.No.259O3 of 2022 &' batch, dated 14.09.2023 wherein this Court disposed of the batch of writ petitions to the limited extent. 4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Departrnent does not dispute that the said objection was decided in the aforesaid batch of Writ Petitions. However, he further contended that apart frort the aforesaid objection, there have been other various objcctions also which the petitioner has raised in the writ petition. 5. So far as this contention of the learned counsel lbr the respondent-Department is concerned, this Bench, r,r'hile disposing of said batch of writ petitions, had taken note of the same at paragraph Nos.37 & 38 which are reproduced herein under: 3 PSI(,J& JYTR,J W.P.No.4669 ol: 2024 ?7. fLE preliminary objection raised by tLrc petitioner is sustained and all these u.tit petifions srands allowed. on this uery jurbdictional issue. Since the impugned. ?ot!n-? and orders are getting quashed on th-e point of juisdiction, u)e ore not inclined to proceed further and. decide tle other issues raised bg the petitioner tahich stand.s reserued to be rai-sed and contend.ed in an appropiate pro ce e ding s. \" \"38. S,nce the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the case of Ashish Aganua| supra, as a one-time measure exercising the pouters under Article 142 of tle Constitutioru of India, permitted the Reuenue to pioeed. under the substituted prouisions, and thii Court allouing the petitions onlg on the procedural flaw, the right anfened on the Reuenue utould remain resented. to proceed furtler if theg so uant from the stage of the o_yder of tlrc Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarua| supra.\" 1 6. 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-arnended provision which is otherwise not sustainable. 7. As has been held by this Bench in rhe aforesaid batch matters, the rights of the parties would stand reserved as is envisaged at paragraph Nos.37 & 3g of the said order passed in the batch of writ petitions. No order as to costs. -./ 4 PSK,J & NTR,J W.P.No'4669 oJ2024 ConsequentlY, miscellaneous shall stand closed. petitions Pending, if anY, I SD/. G. SIREESHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1- The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle 1, Karimnagar, lncome Tax Office, Aaykar Bhawan, Near Natraj Theatre - 505 001, Karimnagar, Telangana 2. The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, Hyderabad Room No..922,9th Floor, ''13'Block, l.T.Towers, 10- 2-3, AC Guards, Hyderabad - 500 004, Telangana 3. The Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department, National e-Assessment Center, New Delhi, Room No.. 401, 2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, New Delhi - 1 10 003. 4. One CC to SRl. A. V. A. SIVA KARTIKEYA, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to SRl. SUNDARI R PISUPATI (Sr SC for lncome Tax Dept) [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies fr ? I e I 1 To, BtM KKS v HIGH COURT DATED:2210212024 ORDER WP.No.4669 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRITPETITION WITHOUT COSTS (+1 o ( o 22 tttt,l :tr:t: ( I t) (( {' .t. * * PAICHEO { "