Jeevraj Patel V. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3 (2) and The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range-3 and The Principal, CIT, Central Circle and The Union of India, Represented by its Secretary to the Government, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance

WP/15023/2023

AI Insights

The case involves two writ petitions filed by Jeevraj Patel challenging the assessment orders passed by the Income Tax Department for the Assessment Years 2017-18 and 2019-20. The petitioner argued that the assessment orders were passed without considering the documents submitted in response to notices under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner had submitted various documents during the assessment proceedings, but the assessing officer's order claimed non-receipt of these documents. The court found that the documents were indeed submitted and acknowledged by the department, but were not considered in the assessment order. The court decided to remit the matter back to the assessing officer for a fresh assessment, considering the submitted documents.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 796189 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 30-01-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: B SAPNA REDDY; B MUKERJEE
• Assessee Lawyers: V V RAMANA
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Income Tax; Natural Justice; Violation of Principles; Writ of Certiorari
• Section: 144; 142(1); 153C; 153D; 226; 300A

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH 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 Nos.: 15023 & 150220F 2023 WRIT PETITIO N NO:150230F 2023: Between: [ 337s ] Nil Rl/o ...PETITIONER .leevrai Patel. S/o Late Kheta Patel, Aged about 72 years, Occ 1l-ls-'r,J, Sri Nagar, L.B Nagar, Hyderabad-500074' AND 1 The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, Central Circle-3 (2), Ayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad -500 004, Telangana' The Addltional commissioner of lncome Tax, central Range -3, Hyderabad. The Principal, ClT, Cenkal Circle' Ayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh' Hyderabad 500 004. The Union of lndia, Represented by its Secretary to the Government' odpartiireirioiRerenu'e Ministry of Finance, Nei'v Delhi 110 001' 2 3 4 ...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 pleasedtoissueanappropriatewrit,orderordirectionmoreparticularlyonein lhe nature of Writ oi Certiorari declarihg that the Assessment Order dated iO.OC,ZS passed by the 1st Respondenlfor th-e.Assessment Year 2019-2020 ,ia\" Of N & brder No ITBA/ASTtSt'1SSC2OZZ-23/1050993557(1) under section rse c ot the lncome Tax Act, 1961 iS illegal' highhanded' discriminatory, \"ibitr\"ry, unreasonable, uniust and violative ol principles of natural justice and Articl€s i4, 2.1 and 30oA oi the constitution of lndia and consequently to quash the said Assessment Order dated 20.03.2023' I I lA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 operation of the assessment order daled 20.03.2023 passed u/s 153 C of the Act and also the demand notice dated 20 -03 -2023 issued u/s 153D of the Act pending disposal of the Writ Pelition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V.V. RAMANA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: Ms. B. SAPNA REODY REPRESENTING FOR Ms. K. MAMATA Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI B. iTIUKERJEE REPRESENTING FOR SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUW SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA WRlT PETITION NO: 15022 OF 2023: Between: Jeevraj 15-7, J Patel, S/o Late Kheta Patel, Aged aboul 72 years, Occ, Nil R/o. 1't- Sri Nagar, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad-500074. PETITIONER AND 1 The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, Central Circle-3 (2), Ayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad -500 004, Telangana. The Additional Commissioner of lncome Tax, Central Range -3, Hyderabad The Principal, ClT, Central Circle, Ayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad - 500 004. The Union of lndia, Represented by its Secretary to the Government, Department of Revenue Minlstry of Finance, New Delhi 1 '10 001 . ...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 an appropriate writ, order or, direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari declaring that the Assessment Order dated 20.03.2023 passed by the 15t Respondent for the Assessment Year 2019- 20 vide DIN and Order No. ITBA/ASTlsl 153C12022-2311051015153('l) under section 153 C r.w.s. 144 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 is illegal, highhanded' discriminatory, arbitrary, unreasonable, unjust and violative of principles of natural justice and Articles 14,21 and 3004 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently to quash the said Assessmdnt Order dated 20.O3.2023 - 2 3 4 // lA NO: 2 OF 2023 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 operation of the assessment order dated 20.03.2023 passed u/s 153 C read with section 144 of the Act and also the demand notice dated 20.O3.2023 issued u/s 156 of the Act pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V.V. RAMANA Counsel for the Respondent No.l to 3: Ms. B. SAPNA REDDY REPRESENTING FOR Ms. K. MAMATA counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI B: MUKERJEE REPRESENTING FOR SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUW SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER o THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAIU KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI W.P. Nos.15O23 & 15O22 of 2o23 COMMON ORDER:(per Hon'bte Srt Justice p.SArt KoSHy) Heard Mr. V. V. Ramana, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. B. Sapna Reddy, learned counsel representing Ms. K. Mamata, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department, appearing for respondent Nos.l to 3 and learned counsel Mr. B. Mukerjee, learned counsel representing learned Depufy Solicitor General of India appearing for respondent No.4. perused the entire record. 2. Since the factual aspects in both the writ petitions are similar in nature, we proceed to decide the two writ petitions by way of this common order. 3. These are the two writ petitions_ which are being filed challenging the Assessment Order dated 20.03.2023 passed by respondent No.1 for the Assessmentyear 2OlZ-18 and 20l9-2O under Section l53C of the Income Tax Act, 196l (hereinafter referred to as ActJ. 4. Conscious of the fact that there is a statutory appeal available with the Department, we have entertained the writ petition on the ground raised by the learned counsel for the pet.itioner that the respondent authorities while passing the impugned order has not I 2 considered the documents which the petitioner had produced before the authorities in response to the Notice issued under Section 142 (l) of the Act as early as on 19.0g.2 O22. lt was further contented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in addition to these documents being made available w.ith the respondent authorities on L9.Og.2022, yet another notice dated 27.01.2023 was issued to the petitioner to produce required information as called for, wherein again, the petitioner had in the format submitted the documents to the authorities as sought for by the Department which was already been submitted online on 19.O8.2O22. In addition to this, learned counsel submits that upon the receipt of Notice fixing the date of personal hearing to be held on 23.02.2023, the petitioner had authorized M/s. Maheshkumar B. Sumbad & Associates, to represent on behalf of him during the personal hearing on the said date. In response to the said notice, the autJrorized person i.e., M/s. Maheshkumar B. Sumbad & Associates had entered appearance before the authorities and made his submissions. In addition, the said representative of the petitioner had also produced a series of documents from the Assessment Year 20l5-16 up till the Assessment year 2O2l_22. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of all the above said documents being made available to the respondent authorities, respondent No. I whi.le passing the irnpugned order has been repeatedly mentioning that the petitioner has not responded to the notices issued from time to time and in the absence of the availabre 3 records sought for from the petitioner, the Assessment Ofhcer has passed the assessment order. This according to the petitioner is arr order which has been passed without proper application of mind and also without discussing any of the documents which were already made available to the Department, first on lg.Oa.2O22 and subsequently, on O3.O2.2O23 and finally again on 23.02.2023 duirng the personal hearing. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for the quashment of the impugned order dated 2O.O3.2O23. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the Department opposing the petition submits that it is a case where the impugned order is one which is appealable before the Appellate Authority and therefore, the writ petition could not be entertained. Further, it was also contended by the learned counsel that the grounds raised by the petitioner are all factual in nature, which again would be one which needs to be traced out in an appeal and the Appellate Authority would have the liberty of perusing the records of the Assessing Oflicer. Lastly, it was contended that from the perusal of the pleadings attached to the writ petition as also from the reading of the impugned order, it would clearly indicate that the petitioner has been deliberately avoiding the notices which were issued from time to time by not furnishing the entire details of documents sought for and also by not giving proper reply to the show cause notice and other notices those were issued to the petitioner except for furnishing half baked documents. Therefore, for all these reasons, the writ petition shall not be entertained. a 4 7 ' Having gone through the submissions made by . the learned counsel for the parties and also on perusal of the records, admittedly, there were a series of notices which were issued by the Department to the petitioner. Though the petitioner does not seem to have given any specific reply to the show cause notice as such or to any of the notices earlier issued, what is not in dispute is the fact that the petitioner did on 19.o8.2022 produce before the authorities certain documents reproduced herein under: \" 1 . Copy of Noti ce 142(71 2. Copy of ITR 3. Copy of Computation of Income 4. List of Bank Accounts 5. List of Cash Deposited 6. Copy of Gift Deed ro Son\". 8. Given the fact that the said documents were submitted by the petitioner on 79.08.2022, the acknowredgement on the document also reflects that the office to have received the same on the same day itself. The document has the seal and endorsernent of receipt. In addition, in response to the subsequent Notice dated, 27.O1.2O23, the petitioner again made a submission reiterat.ing the fact that they have already submitted required documents and information on Yet again, these very documents were again scanned and uploaded to the respondent authorities on 03.02.2023. Lastly, we lrnd that date of personal hearing was given on 23.02.2023. On the said date, ttre petitioner was represented by an agency i.e., M/s. Maheshkumar B. Sumbad & Associates, who again, in turn had 19.08.2022 itself. 5 produced the bunch of documents spreading from the Assessment year 2015-16 to 2O2l-22. However, when we peruse through the impugned order dated 2O.O3.2O23 so far as the Assessment Year 2Ol7-lA and 2Ol9-2O is concerned, it reflects that respondent No.1, while passing the Assessment Order has not dealt with any of these documents which were furnished by the petitioner and which were also made available to the authorities concemed on the date of personal hearing held on 23.02.2023. We also find that the Assessing Authority had also not reflected anywhere so far as the petitioner being given personal hearing and the pelitioner having availed the same through his authorized representative. Neither is there any discussion in respect of the contentions raised by the representative in the course of personal hearing. For the aforesaid reason, we are of the considered opinion that it would be in the larger interests of justice if the matter is remitted back to respondent No.l only so far as reconsidering the assessment proceedings for the Assessment Year 2Ol7-la and 2Ol9-2O. 9. Considering the request made by the learned counsel for the Department that the petitioner may not take advantage of the order of remand and protract the matters further. In order to cut short the period of proceedings, we hold that the petitioner shall now enter appearance before respondent No. I on 09.02.2024 for fresh personal hearing to be afforded with a clear indication that there shall be no request of adjournment made by the petitioner under any I I I n 6 crrcumstances. The petitioner may either appear in _person or through his authorized representative and may refer to the documents that he has already produced before the authorities concerned in response to the two Assessment years for which the matter stands remitted back. Upon hearing the petitioner on Og.O2.2024, respondent No.1 is expected to take a decision within a further period of three (3) weeks from 09.O2.2O24. 10. With the aforesaid direction, both the writ petitions are partly allowed and the matter stands remitted back to respondent No.l for fresh reconsideration of the Assessment. The Assessment order under challenge dated 20.03.2023 stands set aside to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stald closed. SD/-K.AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// I ./ {r/ SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 3 4 5 t) 7 The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, Central Circle-3 (2)' Ayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad -500 004, Telangana. The Adiiitional Cominissi6ner of lncome Tax, Central Range -3, Hyderabad- The Principal, ClT, Central Circle, Ayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad 500 004. The Secretary to the Government, Departrnent of Revenue Ministry of Financ€, The Union of lndia, New Delhi 110 001. One CC to SRI V,V. RAMANA, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Ms. K. MAMATA, SC FOR INCOME TAX [OPUC] One CC to SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DY. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF rNDrA {OPUCI Two CD Copies I 8. BN LS r HIGH COURT DATED:30l01tZOZ4 ORDER WP.Nos.15023 & 15022 of 2023 PARTLY ALLOWN WITHOUT COSTS 11 ttB z0'2r F CC TODAY 1t E STAIF ( ) (l ,'J * O';gy-'Sit) G BOTH THE WRIT PETITIONS lo "