Jupally Real Estate Developers Private Limited, V. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax,

WP/29042/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Jupally Real Estate Developers Private Limited challenging the notices issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, following a search and seizure operation related to the 'My Home Group'. The petitioner argued that the notices were barred by limitation and that the jurisdictional officer's appointment date should not affect the limitation period. The Revenue contended that the notices were valid as the documents were handed over to the new jurisdictional officer on 27.12.2022, post-amalgamation of several companies with the petitioner. The court found the Revenue's arguments compelling, leading to the dismissal of the petitions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 752753 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 25-10-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Maruti Suzuki India Limited, LKS Gold House (Pl Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Article 226 of the Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K CHOUDARY
• Assessee Lawyers: R S ASSOCIATES
• Keywords: Amalgamation; Assessment Year; Limitation; Search and seizure; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 132; 153C; 153B

Judgement Text

"[3411 I HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 29026 29042 29143 29993 AND 29994 0F 2023 WRIT PETITION NO: 29026 OF 2023 Between: AND 1 Jupally Real Estate Developers Private Limited, #1-123,81h Floor, 3rd Block, Sv. ruo.79, Ivly Home Hub, Ivladhapur, Hyderabad - 500081, represented by itd Director Sri Jupally Vinod, S/o. Jupally Rameswar Rao, Aged about 41 Years, RYo. Hyderabad ...PETITIONER 2 3 4 5 Dv. Commissioner of lncome Tax, Central Circle - 2 (1), Room No. 612' 6th Flbor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad. Deputy Commissioner Of lncome Tax, Circle 2 1 Signature Towers, Hyderabad lncome Tax Officer, Ward 2 1, Signature Towers, Hyderabad. lncome Tax Officer, Ward 3 1 , Signature Towers, Hyderabad Assistant Commissioner Of lncome Tax, Central Circle 2 1 , Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ot 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 particulady in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in continuing the proceedings pursuant to the notices u/s. 153C of the Act vide DIN and Notice ifAA/RSTlSltS3C12O22-Z311O4B37OB66 (1) for the Assessment Year 2015-16 as being illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14 of the constitution of lndia, without lurisdiction, without any authority of law and barred by limitation and consequently set aside the impugned order dated 10-10-2023 vide DIN and Notice No. ITBA/ASTiF/1 7 12023-241 1 0569487 1 4 r Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fited in support of the petition, t\" uign court may o\" pi\"rrlJ-to \"try all proceedings pursuant to the impugned notice\"date d 1o-1(;-202i vioe oit t ano Notice No ITBA/AST/F/1 7 t ZOZI- Z+t I O SAg 487 1 4 (1 ) IA NO: 1 OF 2023 lA NO:'l OF 2024 Between: 1 Dy. Commissioner of lncome Tax, Central Circle - 2 (.1 ), Room No. 6i 2, 6th Floor. Aayakar Bhavan, Basheer gagh, HvJer;baO. '' Deputy.Commissioner Of lncome Tax, Circle 21 Signature To,,ers, Hyderabad ...PETITIONER Jupally Real Estate Developers private Limited, #1_123, Bth Floor, 3rd Block. Sy. No. 79. Mv Home uun, VaOfripur, UVO\"rrbJ,i _'500081: iil\";;;6;i; its Director Sri Juoalv vinbd, S/o.-Ju'p;iiy;U;;\"r*ar Rlo,'Aii;i;;;i ;i Years, R:/o. Hyderdbad ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER lncome Tax Officer, Ward 2 1, Signature Towers, Hyderabad. lncome Tax Officer, Ward 3 .l , Signature Towers, Hyderabad Assistant Commissioner Of lncome Tax, Central Circle 2 I , Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NOS 2 TO 4 2 AND 1. lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Between: a 4 5 Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavii fited in suppo.d gl ^th\" petition, if,\" Hign Court may Ou pl*rlJ to vacate the interim order dated 16.10.2023 in 1.A. No. 1 0f 20i3 i; w.p. No.r-9b26 of 2023 and dismiss the present writ petition in w.p. No. 29o26of 2023 with costs 1 Dy' commissioner of rncome Tax, centrar circre - 2 (1), Room No. 612, 6th Froor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheereagh, HyOeijS;. \"-'\" -' 2.Assistant Commissioner Of lncome Tax, Central Circle 2 1 , Hyderabad ...PETITIONER AND 1 Jupally Real Estate Deveropers private Limited, #1_1z3,Bth Floor,3rd Block. Sy. No. 7e, My Home uuo, Maorrapui, Hy;;;;6;i--,;0b6iii: ;il;,\"#t\"\"[ii; b its Director Sri Jupally Vinod, S/o. Jupally Rameswar Rao, Aged about 41 Years, Rl/o. Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER 2. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2 1 , Signature Towers, Hyderabad. 3. lncome Tax Officer, Ward 3 1 , Signature Towers, Hyderabad 4- Deputy Commissioner Of lncome Tax, Circle 2 1 Signature Towers, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NOS 2 TO 4 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 grant permission to file vacate stay cum counter affidavit in the interest of justice WRIT PETITION NO: 29042 OF 2023 Between: Jupally Real Estate Developers Private Limited, 1-123, Bth Floor,3rd Block. Sy. No. 79, My Home Hub, lvladhapur, Hyderabad 500081, represented by its Director Sri Jupally Vinod, S/o. Jupally Rameswar Rao, Aged about 41 Years, Rl/o. Hyderabad ...PETITIONER AND 1 Dy. Commissioner of lncome Tax, Central Ctcle 2 ('l ), Room No. 612, 6th Flbor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad. Dy. Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle 2('1). Signature Towers, Hyderabad. lncome Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Signature Towers, Hyderabad. lncome Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Signature Towers, Hyderabad. Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, Central Circle 2(1), Hyderabad ...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 a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in continuing the proceedings pursuant to the notices u/s. 153C of the Act vide DIN and Notice lTBA/AST/S/1 53C12022-2311048376867 (1) for the Assessment Yeat 2016-17 as being illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of lndia, without jurisdiction, without any authority of law and barred by limitation and consequently set aside the impugned order dated 10-10-2023 vide DIN and Notice No. tTBA/ASTi F/1 7 12023-241 1 056948993 2 J 4 5 r k lA NO: 1 OF 2023 lA NO: 1 OF 2024 lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Between: Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, ine Higr' court may be tre;;;J-a stay all proceedings pursuant to the impugned notice\"dated 1o-1(i-202i vioe oirrr Lno Notice No ITBA/AST/F/1 7I2O23- 24t1036948993 Between: 1 . Dy. Commissioner of lncome Tax, Central Circle 2 (.1 ), Room No. 6.12. 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheer gagl,, HyOtraOaO. 2' Assistant commissioner of rncome Tax, centrar circre 2(.1 ), Hyderabad ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT NOS.1 & 5 AND 1. Jupally Real Estltj: Developers private Limited, 1_123, Bth Floor. 3rd Btock. Sy. No 7_9, My Hbme Hub,'-Madh;-p;r, H;;e;il;i'86'doar, represented by its Direct6r Sri Jupally Vinod , ... RESPONDENT/PETITIONER 2. Dy. Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle 2(1). Signature Towers, Hyderabad. 3. lncome Tax Officer, tNard 2(1), Signature Towers, Hyderabad. 4. lncome Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Signature Towers, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 4 Petition under section _151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, in\"-Hign court may o\" pi\"\"J pilI.\"o to vacate the interim order dated 16.10.2023 in r.A. No. l ot zozi ,,''-w.r. No.29026 0f 2023 and dismiss the present writ petition in w.p. No. 290260f 2023 with costs 1 Dy. commissioner of rncome.Tax, centrar circre - 2 (1), Room No. 612, 6th Froor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheer eagh, HyOerab;il. \"\"'\" - 2.Assistant Commissioner Of lncome Tax, Central Cicle 2(1) , Hyderabad ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT NOS 1 &5 s- AND 1 Jupally Real Estate Developers Private Limited, #1-123, Bth Floor, 3rd Block, Sy. No. 79, My Home Hub, tVadhapur, Hyderabad - 500081, represented by its Director Sri Jupally Vinod .,.RESPONDENT/PETITIONER 2. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 2 1 Signature Towers, Hyderabad 3. lncome Tax Officer, Vtl ard 2 (1), Signature Towers, Hyderabad. 4. lncome Tax Officer, Ward 3 (1) , Signature Towers, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT NOS 2 TO 4 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 grant permission to file vacate stay cum counter affidavit in the interest of justice WRIT PETITION NO: 29143 OF 2023 Between: Jupally Real Estate Developers Private Limited, 1-123, Bth Floor,3rd Block, Sy. No.79, My Home Hub, Madhapur, Hyderabad - 500081, represented by ita Director Sri Jupally Vinod, S/o. Jupally Rameswar Rao, Aged about 41 Years, Rl/o. Hyderabad ...PETITIONER AND '1 . Deputy Commissioner Of lncome Tax, Central Circle 2 (1), Room No. 612, 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad 2. Deputy Commissioner Of lncome Tax, Circle 2 1, Slgnature Towers, Hyderabad 3. lncome Tax Officer, Ward 2( 1), Signature Towers, Hyderabad 4. lncome Tax.Officer, Ward 3 (1), Signature Towers, Hyderabad 5. Assistant Commissioner Of lncome Tax, Central Ctcle 2 ('1 ), Hyderabad ...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 a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in continuing the proceedings pursuant to the notices u/s. 153C of the Act vide DIN and Notice ITBA/AST/S/153C12022-2311048376861(1) for the Assessment Year 2017 - 18 as being illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14 of the constitution of lndia, without jurisdiction, without any authority of law and barred by limitation and consequently set aside the impugned order dated 1Ol1Ol2O23 vide DIN and Notice No. |TBA/AST/F/1 7 12023-241 1056949244 6 Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fited in support of the petition, irrJ uign court may oe ptearlJ'to .tay all proceedings pursuant to the impugned notice-date d 1ol1ol2o23 vide DtN Lno Notice No. |TBA/AST/F/I 7 t2023 _ 24ti056945244(1) lA NO: 1 OF 2023 lA NO: 1 OF 2024 lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Between: 1. Between: 1. Deputy commissioner of Income_rax, centrar circre 2 (1), Room No. 612, 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheer eagh, Uyd-eiaOad - - ' 2. Assistant commissioner of rncome Tax, centrar circre 2 (.1 ), Hyderabad ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT NOS 1&5 AND 1. Jupally ^Real Estjrle Developers private Limited. 1_123,81h Floor. 3rd Brock, Sy. No. 79, tvy Hginq Huo,-rraaorrapui'Hy;;;;;; l,\"s\"o,ooar, represented bv its Director Sri Juoalrv vinod, s/o.'Jur;a-rry nliie.*\"aihao, Aged about 4i years, nyo. HvOeiSOat \"\"\" 2. Deputy Commissioner of tncome ,r-, c,r\";;::::;H::ifl:]1\"-=- Hyderabad 3. lncome Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Signature Towers, Hyderabad 4. lncome Tax Officer, Ward 3 (1), Signature Towers, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT NOS 2 TO 4 Petition under Section i 5i cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavir fired in support of the peiition, Ir,e Hign court may rr\" pr*rlJ to vacate the interim order dated 17.10.2023 in l.A.,,No. 1 0f 2073 i; w.p. rrro.z-s1+a of 2023 and dismiss the present writ petition in w.p. No. 29143 ofzoz: witrr costs 2 QgOyly Commissioner Of tngome Tax, Central Circle 2 (1), Room No. 612, 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheer t \"Sh, HtO\"iibrd Assistant Commissioner Of lncome Tax, Central Circle 2 (1), Hyderabad ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT NOS 1 &5 :3l\",liTlt9q' 1-12-3. Bth Flocr, 3rd Block, pur, HydeJabad - 500081, represented bv Jupatry Kameswar Rao, ASled about 4i ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER AND 1 {upally leal Estate Developers pri 9y.Io. 79, lVy Home Hub,'Madha rts ljirector Sri Jupally Vinod, S/o. Years, RYo. Hyderabad -7- ...RESPONDENTS 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 grant permission to file vacate stay cum counter affidavit in the interest of justice WRIT PETITIO N NO: 29993 OF 2023 Between: 2. Deputy Commissioner Of lncome Tax, Circle 2 1, Signature Towers, Hyderabad 3. lncome Tax Officer, Ward 2( 'l ), Signature Towers, Hyderabad 4. lncome Tax Officer, Ward 3 (1), Signature Towers, Hyderabad Juoallv Real Estate Developers Private Limited, '1 123 Bth Floor 3rd Block Sy rrrJ 7ri tvtv Home Hub Mbdhapur Hvderabad 500081 represented by its Director S?i Jupally Vinod S/o Jlpally Rameswar Rao Aged about 41 Years Rl/o Hyderabad ...PETITIONER 1. Dv. Commissioner of lncome Tax, Central Circle - 2 (1)' Room No' 612' 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad. 2. Deputy Commissioner Of lncome Tax, Circle 2 1 , Signature Towers, Hyderabad 3. lncome Tax Officer, Ward 2 1 , Signature Towers, Hyderabad 4. lncome Tax Officer, Ward 3 1 , Signature Towers, Hyderabad 5. Assistant Commissioner Of lncome Tax, Central Circle 2 1 , Hyderabad ...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 a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in continuing the proceedings pursuant to the notices u/s. 153C of the Act vide DIN and Notice ifeRtRSflSttS3Ct2O22-29t1048376S61(1) for the Assessment Year 2013-14 as being illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14 of the constitution of lndia, without lurisiictioi, without any authority of law and Oql_e.q!V limitation and consequently Let aside the impugned order dated 1Ot1Ot2O23 vide DIN and Notice No. tTBA/AST/F/1 7 12023-241 1 056948404(1 ) AND IA 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 stay all proceedings pursuant to the impugned order dated 10-10-2023 vide DIN and Noiice No ITBA/AST/F/1 7 t 2023-241 1 056948206( 1 ) 8 Between: '1 ' Deputy commissioner of rncome_Tax, centrar circre 2 (1), Ro.m No. 612. 6th Ftoor. Aaya ka r B ha van, aasneei aagii, rit)jli\"bro 2. Assistant Commissioner Of lncome Tax, Central Circle 2 (.1), Hyderabad AND ...PET|T|oNERS/RESPoNDENT NOS 1&5 1 . Jupally Real Estate Developers private Limited, 1.-12_3r ^B_tf Floor, 3rd Block, sy. No. 7e, rvv Home Hub,'Maiha;;i, riy,i\"iliro _ so{o.iir,.liii\"llrtZt ov its Director Sri Junaly Vi;bd;-Si;.'j.rbli,rv\"n5.\".*ar Rao, Aged about 4.1 Years, Rl/o. Hyderdbao ' ffB:llf;?,missioner or rncome rax, circre, ;:fi::),:ilr/PErrrroNER 3. lncome Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Signature Towers, Hyderabad 4. lncome Tax Officer, Ward 3 (1), Signature Towers, Hyderabad ,..RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT NOS 2 TO 4 lA NO: 1 oF 2024 lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section.1.l1 CpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, *,u-High corrt may be prerased to qrant permission to fire vacate srav cum counter affidavit i\" th\"l;i\"i\";i\"ill;r;;; '\" '' Between: 1. Deputy Commissioner OI lncome Tax, Central Circle 2 (1), Roonr No. 612. 6th Ftoor. Aayakar Bhavan. Msh;;iBa;ii,lr\",ijL?!oro 2. Assistant Commissioner Of lncome Tax, Central Circle 2 (.1), Hyrierabad AND ...PET|T|oNERS/RESPoNDENT NOS 1&s 'r ' Jupary Rear Estate Deveropers private Limited, 1-.12_3r -gth Froor, 3rd Brock, Sv' No. 7e, Mv Home uuo,-rraaohaiJi, riol'r?oro - socioar,'\"iiir*!i,t\"\"li ov its Director Sri Juoaly VinbA:Gi;.'j.;'pii,ll\"iE.\".*ar Rao, Ased about 4.t Years, Rt/o. Hyderdbao ' E;BSgf,\"r, m iss io ne r or I nco me rax, ci rcre ; ; :5:::): 1:;/irsElrrro N E R 3- lncome Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Signature Towers, Hyderabad I ii 5 4. lncome Tax Officer, Ward 3 (1), Signature Towers, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT NOS 2 TO 4 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 vacate the interim order dated 20.10.2023 in l.A. No. 1 of 2023 in W.P. No.29993 ol 2023 as extended from time to time and dismiss the present writ petition in W.P. No. 29993 ot 2023 with costs WRIT PETITION NO: 29994 OF 2023 Between: Jupally Real Estate Developers Private Limited, 1-123, Bth Floor,3rd Block, Sy. No. 79, My Home Hub, Madhapur, Hyderabad -500081, represented by its Director Sri Jupally Vinod, S/o. Jupally Rameswar Rao, Aged about 41 Years, Rl/o. Hyderabad ...PETITIONER AND 1 Deputy Commissioner Of lncome Tax, Central circle - 2('1 ), room no. 612, 6th floor, ayakar Bhavan, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad Deputy Commissioner Of lncome Tax, Circle 2 1, Signature Towers, Hyderabad lncome Tax Officer, Ward 2 1, Signature Towers, Hyderabad lncome Tax Officer, ward 3 1, Signature Towers, Hyderabad Assistant Commissioner Of lncome Tax, Central Circle 2 1 Hyderabad ...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 a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in continuing the proceedings pursuant to the notices u/s. 1 53C of the Act vide DIN and Notice ITBAiAST/S/153C12022-2311048376864 (1) for the Assessment Year 2O14-15 as being illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of lndia, without jurisdiction, without any authority of law and barred by limitation and consequently set aside the impugned order dated 10-10-2023 vide DIN and Notice No. tTBA/AST/F/'1 7 t2023-241 1 056948563(1 ) 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 stay proceedings pursuant to the impugned notice dated 10-10-2023 vide DIN and Notice No ITBA/AST/F/1 7 12023-241 1 O56948563s( 1 ) 2 3 4 5 - lo - lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Between: 1. Deputy. Commis_sioner Of lncome Tax, Central Ctcle 2 (1), Rocm No. 6.12, 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad 2. Assistant Commissioner Of lncome Tax, Central Circle 2 (1), Hyderabad ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT NOS 1 &5 AND 1. Jupally Real. Estate Developers .Private Limited, 1-123, Bth Floor, 3rd Block, 9V Io. 79, I 4y Home Hub, IVladhapur, Hyderabad - 500081, repiesenteO ny its Director .Sri .Jupally Vinod, S/o. Jupaliy Rameswar Rao,'Agjed about 41 Years, Rl/o. Hyderabad .,.RESPONDENT/PETITIONER Deputy Commissioner Of lncome Tax, Circle 2 1, Signature Towers, Hyderabad lncome Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Signature Towers, Hyderabad lncome Tax Officer, Ward 3 (1), Signature Towers, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT NOS 2 TO 4 Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumst;ances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to grant permission to file vacate stay cum counter affidavit in the interest of justice lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Between: 1. Deputy- Commissioner Of lncome Tax, Central Circle 2 (1), Roc,m No. 612. 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad 2. Assistant Commissioner Of lncome Tax, Central Circle 2 (1), Hyderabad ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT NOS 1&5 2 e 4 AND 1 2 {upally Real.Estate Developers Private.Limited, 1-123, Bth Floor, 3rd Block, 9V Io. 79, My Home Hub, Madhapur, Hyderabad - 500081, -\"piesenGA Or) its Director ,Sri Jupally Vinod, S/o. Jupaliy Rameswar Rao, Ad;d ab;ut ;1 Years, R/o. Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER Deputy Commissioner Of lncome Tax, Circle 2 1, Signature Towers, Hyderabad lncome Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Signature Towers, Hyderabad lncome Tax Officer, Ward 3 (1), Signature Towers, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT NOS 2 TO 4 3 4 - tL - 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 vacate the interim orderdated 20.10.2023 in 1.A. No. 1 of 2023in W.P. No.29994 of 2023 as extended from time to time and dismiss the present writ petition in W.P. No. 29994 of 2023 with costs Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. R.S. ASSOCIATES IN ALL THE WRIT PETITIONS Counsel forthe Respondents: Ms. K MAMATA CHOUDARY SC FOR INCOME lN ALL THE WRIT PETITIONS TAX Department The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER J o THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.29026, 290,42, 29L43,29993 AND 29994 0F 2023 COMMON ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Justice Sujog paul) In these petitions fired under Articre 226 of the c,rnstitution, the petitioner has taken exception to the orders dated 10. ro.2023 whereby its representations against the office notices dated 30.12.2022 issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 196 i (for short, the Act) were rejected by the Comm issioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Hyderabad. Facts: 2. Draped in brevity, the admitted facts between the parties are that a search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act was conducted in the group cases of M/s.Coastal Energz and M/s.Coastal Energen private Limited at their premises located in Chennai. -During that search operation, certain clocuments relating to 'My Home Group, i.e., (i) M/s.Spinoza Enterprises (p) Limited, (ii) M/s.JBM Resorts (p) Limited, (iii) M/s.JBM Agros International (p) Limited and (iv) M/s. JBM Exports vi.ere found and seized by the Department. The respective jur:.sdictional off,rcers issued notices under section r53c of the Act to the above 4 assesses for the Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2017-18. The a,foresaid four assessee companies submitted their reply by contending that M/s.Spinoza Enterprises (P) Limited, M/s.JBM Resorts (P) Limited, M/s.JBM Agros International (P) Limited and M/s. JBM Exports were amalgamated with M/s.Jupally Real Estate Developers Pvt. Limited, the petitioner herein, with effect from 05.09.2019 pursuant to an order of Nationa-l Company Lavv Tribunal dated 05.09.2019. Since the aforesaid four companies stood amalgamated with the petitioner, no action can be taken against them. The Department, ln vlew of judgment of the Supreme Court in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Maruti Suzuki India Limitedr, realised that notices issued against amalgarnating entity after amalgamation is void because the said entity ceased to exist after amalgamation. Thus, the Department thought it proper to put the petitioner to notice. On 27.12.2022, the Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad, vide impugned orders i.e., DIN Nos.ITBA/AST lF /17 12023- 24 / tos69487 r4(tl, rTBA/ AST/F/ 17 /2023-24 / 1Os6e48e93(1), rTBA/AST/F / 77 /2023-241 7056e49244(r), [TBA/ AST /F / t7 / 2023-24/1056948404(1) and ITBA/AST/F/17 /2023-24/ 1056948563(1), notihed the assessing officer who will be having jurisdiction. Accordingly, notices under Section 153C of the Act ' AIRoNLINE 2ot9 sc 714 W /sl 5 were issued for the Assessment yearc 2Ot2-13 to 2 OlZ-18 on 30.I2.2022. The petitioner filed reply and raised objecr_ion against the said notices dated 30.72.2022. When no heed was paid to the representationsl objections filed by the petitioner on the point of limitation, the petitioner filed W.p.No.1623Z of 2023 which was disposed of by order dated 20.02.2023, directing the respondents to take an appropriate decision on the representations of the petitioner dealing with the question of limitation unrler Section 153C of the Act expeditiously preferably within a period of six weeks. In turn, by impugned orders dated 10.10.21023, such representations/ objections were rejected. These orders are subject matter of challenge in this batch of Writ petitions. Contention ofthe petitioner: 3. Sri S. Ravi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submits that notices were issued to four entities as under: Re 06.05.2021 ()6.05.2021 (t6.O5.202I c'6.o5.2021 4' First notice was issued on o9.o4.2o2 1. The rimitretion is to be counted as per Section 153B of the Act. The Depanment has I)ate of S.No A.O Notice u/s. 1s3c 1 Respondent No.2 09.o4.2021 2 M/s.JBM Resorts Private Limited JBM Agros International Private Limited Company Respondent No.3 27.O4.2027 3 Exports Private JBM Limited Respondent No.3 26.O4.2021 4 Enterprises M/ s. Spinoza Private Limited Respondent No.4 26.06.2027 6 erred in counting the limitation from 27 .12.2022 when jurisdiction was assigned to the relevant jurisdictional officer. The said document dated 27.12.2022 is placed on record with rejoinder as Annexure P-2. Thus, sheet anchor of argument of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that the limitation cannot be counted from 27.72.2022 when jurisdictional officer was appointed and books of account and documents were handed over to him or from the date of issuance of notice dated 3O. 12.2022. Instead, the starting point of limitation is the date of issuance of first notice under Section 153C of the Act i.e.,09.O4.2O21. This implies that the books of account or the documents or the assets seized were handed over to the assessing officer before O9.O4.2O2I. By placing reliance on Section 127 of the Act which deals with transfer of cases between the assessing authorities, it is contended that it is an internal process and same cannot form basis for the purpose of extending/renewing or reviving the limitation. There exists no provision permitting such exclusion. 5. The next limb of argument is that the words ?randed over' used in prouiso to Section 1538 of the Act refers to handover of incriminating material from the seized agency to the assessing agency. It does not contemplate multiple transfers between different assessing authorities. If interpretation advanced by the l n Revenue is accepted, it would mean that any issue of limitation can be overcome by al internal process of centraliszrtion. This cannot be the intention of the regisration while inserting prouiso to Section 153B ofthe Act. Contention ofthe Revenue: 6. Representing the Revenue, Ms.K.Mamata, learnt:d counsel, supported the impugned orders and urged that previous notices issued to M/s.Spinoza Enterprises (p) Limited, M/s.JEtM Resorts (P) Limited, M/s.JBM Agros International (p) Limited and M/s. JBM Exports tr'ere issued on different dates of April and June of 2021. After receiving their responses, the Department came to know that in vieu. of the order of National Company La.,v Tribunal dated 05.09 .2019, tine said companies stood amalganrated with the petitioner - transferee company. Thus, in view of judgment of the Supreme Court in Maruti Suzuki India Limited (supra), the previous notices were treated to be uoid,. The officer who received the documents from the said four companies ald issued the notices ceased to have jurisdiction because of amalgamation, and therefore, the documents could not have been said to be handed over to a competent assessing officer. post amalgamation, the proper assessment wourd be of the transferee entity wh ich is the petitioner in the instant case. 8 7 . l,earned Revemre counsel further contended that the ceased documents were handed over to the jurisdictional offrcer only on 27.12.2022, artd therefore, the notices dated 30.12.2022 for Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2Ol7-18 are valid and cannot be said to be barred by limitation. In support of this submission, she placed reliance on judgment of the Madras High Court in LKS Gold House (Pl Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-taxz. 8 The parties confined their arguments to the extent indicated above. We have bestowed our anxious consideration on rival contentions and perused the record. FINDINGS: g. Before dealing with the arguments, it is apposite to reproduce the relevant provision which reads as under: \"1538. Time limit for completion of assessment under section 153A. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 153, the Assessing Officer shall make an order of assessment or reassessment,- (a) in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years and for the relevant assessment year or years referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 153A, within a period of twenty-one months from the end of the hnancial year in which the last of the authorisations for search under section 132 or for requisition under section 132A was executed; (b) in respect of the assessment year relevalt to the previous year in which search is conducted under section 132 or iequisition is made under section 132A, within a period of ' 12024) 16l taxmann.com 604 (Madras) a ,] f-i W 9 - twenty-one which the section I32 executed: months from the end of the financial year in last of the authorisations for search- under or for requisition under section 13llA rvas Provided that in case of other person referred to in section 153C the period of limitation for making the assessnrent or reassessment shall be the period as referred to in clause or clause (b) of this sub-section or nine months from the end of the financial year in which books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned are handed over under section 153C to the Assessing OIficer having jurisdiction over such other person, whichever is later. (Emphasis Suoplied) 10. The interesting quagmire in this case is relating Lo starting point of limitation for the purpose of passing order of assessment. As noticed above. the parties are at 1oggerheads on the aspect of starting point' The stand of the petitioner is that the first notice was issued on 09 .O4 .2O2 1 which shows that the books o I account, documents and assets seized came in possession of assessing officer before Og.O4.2O2L. The petitioner in reply affidavit/rejoinder have reproduced a chart which has been extracted by us hereinabove. Admittedly, no notice was issued to the petitioner in the year 2021. The notices referred in the said chart were issued to aforesaid four transferor companies. 1 1. The prouiso to Section better understalding. 1538 of the Act carr be split up for \"\"1538. Time limit section 153A. for completion of assessment under (a) l ,i i ,i, rll rll 10 1 Provided that in case of other person referred to in section 153C, (i) the period of limitation for making the assessment or reassessment shall be the period as referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) of this sub-section (ii) or nine months from the end of the financiai vear in which books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned are handed over under section 153C to the Assessine Offrcer having iurisdiction over such other person, whichever is later.\" (Emphasis Supplied) 12. A plain reading of the provision and expression txrhichever is later' shows the tegislative intent that out of aforesaid two methods of counting limitation, the later one will prevail. Undisputedly, in the instant case, the argument revolves around the second (ii) mode of counting limitation. As per the petitioner, the starting point is 2O2l when notices were issued to the said four companies, whereas the Revenue has taken a diametrically opposite stand by contending that the books of account or documents were handed over to the assessing officer having jurisdiction only on 27.12.2022. This point deserves serious consideration. 13. The argument of the petitioner, as reflected in the ground-E of writ afhdavits, shows that the petitioner asstrmed that starting point of limitation is founded upon first notice issued under f: ry II r- Section 1 53C on 09 .O4.2O21 . The said notice was not issued to the petitioner. The said notice has lost its complete sh.Lne because the sarne was issued against a company which stood arnalgamated in view of judgment of the Supreme Court in Maruti Suzuki India Limited (supra). The said notice and action is uold in nature. No amount of argument is advanced by rhe learned Senior counsel for the petitioner to rebut the argumen t advanced on the basis of judgment of the Supreme Court in Maruti Suzuki India Limited (supra). Thus, we find no diffrculty in accepting the argument of the Revenue that earlier notices issued to the said four transferor companies fade into insignificalce and no limitation can be counted on the basis of the said notice,s. 14 . Before dealing further, it is apposite to remind ourselves about general principles of construction in taxing statutes. In a classic passage LORD CAIRNS stated the principle tlrus: ,If the person sought to be toxed comes u,rithin tle letter of the laut he must be taxed, hotueuer great tLe hard.ship maA appear to rhe jud,icial mind to be. On the oth,er hand, if tte Crotun seeking to recouer the tax, cannot bing the subject u_tithin the letter of the lata, the subject is free, LLoweuer apparently u.titlin the spirit of lata the .:ase might, otherwise appear to be. In other utord.s, if there be admissibre ln aftA statute, uthat is called an equitable, construction, certainlg, 12 such a construction is not ad-missible in a taxing stqtute where Aou can simplg ad,here to the word-s of the statute (see partington v.A.G.3). USCOUNT SIMSON quoted with approval a passage from ROWLATT, J., expressing the principle in the following words: 'In a taxing Act one ha.s to look meretg qt what b cleartg said. There is no room for ang intendment. There is no equitg about a tax. There is no presumption as to tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be imptied. One can onlg look fairly at the language rused (see Cape Brandy Syndicate v. IRCa). The above principle of strict construction of taxing statues was quoted with approval in Commissioner of Income_tax, Madras v. Kasturi & Sonss where the word .moneys, in the expression .moneys payable, in Section 4l(21 of the Income_tax Act, 1961 was not construed to include 'money,s worth,. In interpreting a section in a taxing statute, according to LORD SIMONDS, ,the question is not at u.that transaction th_e section is accord,ing to some alleged general purpose aimed, but u^at transqction its language according to its naturutl meaning fairlg and_ squarelg hjls (see St. Aubyn (LMf v. A.G.o. LORD SIMONDS call this .the one and only proper test,. t lteoe; LR a uL roo o 1t 9z t; r tu o+ ' n ,qgg (z sc ztz u lus r y z r.it en az: ry' t3 15. The aforesaid legal journal makes it crystal clear that if language of statute is plain and unambiguous, it has to be given effect to, irrespective of consequences. 16. In this backdrop, the prouiso to Section 1538 of the Act needs to be examined. A microscopic reading of reler,ant portion of the said prouiso leaves no room for arry doubt th,at the date when books of account or documents or assets seized were handed over to the assessing officer having jurisdiction over such person is the cr-ucial date ald if it is later in time, under rhichever is later' expression, this date will be starting point for counting limitation. Since previous notices which were issued to four trarrsferor companies were uoid., same vanished in thin air and relevant dates for issuance of said notices are of no relevalce. Merely because some time was consumed in centralising and handing over relevant incriminating material to the assessing officer having jurisdiction, the petitioner will not come out of rigors of the said prouiso which is clear arrd unambiguous. 77. The Madras High Court in LKS Gold House (pl Ltd. (supra), held as under: \"103. Even if the ,,Assessing Officers\" of the \"searched pr:rson,, and the \"Assessing Officer\" of ..other p\".\"orr\"\" like the respective petitioner are same, the date of ..satisfaction note,, is to be the deemed date of handing or\".-Ji the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned f,tr the t4 purpose of computation of limitation. Thus, twelve months from the end of the financial year from the date on which the documents were handed over or deemed to have been handed over to the \"Assessing Ofhcer\" of the \"other person\" such as these petitioners would be start running for computation of limitation from 3 1.03.2O23. 106. Even if the Assessine officer of the \"searched person\" anel that of the \"other person\" i.e the petitioner were same, it has to be construed that the officer concerned was wearins two different hats one as the \"assessinq ofhcer\" of the \"searched person\" and one as the \"assessins officer\" of the 'other person\". It would be different if they are different in which case it is the date of actual handing over of the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned.\" (EmPhasis SuPPlied) 18. The Madras High Court considered a situation where assessing officer of the 'searched person' and bther person'were sarne. Despite that, it opined that the officer performing two different duties was wearing two 'different hats'. 19. In the instant case, it is not the case of the petitioner that the officer who conducted search on aforesaid four companies and the officer who has been given jurisdiction by order dated 27.12.2022 are sarne. We are unable to persuade ourselves with the line of argument of iearned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the notices dated 30.12.2022 a-re barred by limitation and bad in law. We find no reason to interfere with the impugned orders dated lO.lO.2O23 and also notices dated 30.12.2022 issued by the Department. (.tl 5 20. Resultantlv, the Writ Petitions fail and are herebv dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending in all the Writ petitions, shall stand closed. One fair copy to THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO (For His LordshiP's Kind Perusal) 1. 111.R. CoPies. i. rnJUnOer'Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi. 3. The Secietary, Telangana Advocates Association Library, High Court for the'State of Telangana at Hyderabad. 4. One CC to SRl. R.S. ASSOCIATES Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to NIs. K MAIMATA CHOUDARY SC FOR INCOIVIE: TAX Department [OPUC] 6. Two CD CoPies SD/. K. SREE RAMA MURTHY / ASSISTANT REGI$TRAR / //TRUE coPY// secloruVrtcen One fair copy to THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL (For His LordshiP's Kind Perusal) AND To, KKS LS w HIGH COURT DATED:2511012024 ,,1. lr .,.) ./:.1 ior . Ti.i '4 q 0 /, N[lt 11il./1 4J a- ,j .:'. ll / .-i. COMMON ORDER WP. N os.2 9026,290 42,291 43,29993 AN D 29994 of 2023 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS d(^ k\". )b I "