KRISHNA PRASAD KONDAPALLI V. Office of The Income Tax Officer

WP/19572/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Krishna Prasad Kondapalli, the petitioner, challenging the validity of notices issued by the Income Tax Department for the assessment year 2017-18. The notices were issued under Section 148A(d) and Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Junior Assessment Officer instead of the First Appellate Officer, which the petitioner argued was contrary to the provisions of the Income-tax Act and the principles of natural justice. The High Court's decision was influenced by a common order in a batch of writ petitions, including W.P.No.25903 of 2022, which had already addressed similar issues.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 690249 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 24-07-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Ashish Agarwal
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, Finance Act, 2021, Article 226 of the Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: BOKARO SAPNA REDDY; B MUKHERJEE
• Assessee Lawyers: KRISHNA PRASAD KONDAPALLI
• Keywords: Income Tax; Natural Justice; Procedural Flaw; Re-assessment; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 148; 148A(d)

Judgement Text

"[ 3411 ] Between: KRISHNA PRASAD KONDAPALLI, S/o.RUKMA RAO KONDAPALLI, Aged about 61years, Occupation.Business R/o. Ei/6,SeetapuramDondapadu Nalgonda 508246,Telangana, lndia, HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO ...PETITIONER AND 1 2 Office of The lncome Tax Officer, ward 1, Khammam/ Telangana State The Pnncipal Chief Commissioner Of lncome Tax Telangana And A P. Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad 3. The National Faceless Assessment Center, lncome Tax Department, New Delhi ...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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned notice dated. 25.03 2024 for A.Y.2017-18 passed u/s 148A (d) of the Act vide DIN No. ITBA/AST/F/148N2023-24t1063337433(1) and the consequential notice u/s 148 dated26 03.2024 vtde DIN No ITBA/AST/S/148 112023-2411063353137(1). issued by the JAO(1st respondent) instead of FAO(3rd respondent),as void. illegal, and contrary to the provisions of lncome-tax Act and contrary to the Principles of Natural Justice. WRIT PETITION NO: 19572 OF 2024 Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KRISHNA PRASAD KONDAPALLI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SMT. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY (Jr. SC FOR INCOME TAX) Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI B. MUKHERJEE FOR SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DY SOLICITARY GEN OF INDIA The Court made the following: ORDER / THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AITD THE HOT{OURABLE SRI JUSTICE I{AM4.VARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.19572 OF 2024 ORDER: (y:er Hon'ble Justice Sujog Paul) Heard Sri Krishna Prasad Kondapalli, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms.B.Sapna Reddy, learned Junior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department appears for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri B. Mukheq'ee, Iearned counsel representing Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for respondent No.3. 2. The ground taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner(s) is that in furtherance of Finance Act, 2021, re- assessment process stood modified but the respondents have not taken care of it ald therefore notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 196 1 cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. Since notice is bad in law, the consequential orders are also bad in iaw. 3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the parties agreed that curtains on this issue are finally drawn by this Court in a batch of writ petitions, W.P.No.259O3 of 2022 ald other connected matters, decided by common order .--\" / 2 dated 14.09.2023. Tlne parties agreed that this matter may be disposed of in terms of the Common Order dated 14.O9.2023. 4. This Court in the said order dated 14.09.2023 W.P.No.25903 of 2022, held as under: '35. IE ?iew of the aforesaid discussions, it is by now very clear that the procedure to be follocred by the respoEdent- Departmeat upon treatiDg the aotices issued for reassessrlent beilg uuder Section l4gA, the subsequett proceediugs was Bandatorily required to be undertakeu under the sut stituted ptovisions as laid dorr,a utrder the Finauce Act, 2021. In the absence of which, we are constrained to hold that the procedure adopted by the respondent_Departhest is in contraventiou to the statute i.e. the Finauce Act, 2O21, at the first idstaace. Secoadly, it is also i! direct coEtlaventio[ to the directives issued by the Hoa,ble Supreme Court itr the case ofAshish Agan al, sup.a. 36. For all the aforesaid reasoas, the irnpugEed notices issued atrd the proceedilgs drawn by the respondeat-DepartEent is neither telable, Dor sustaiuable- The notices so issued and the procedure adopted being per se illegal, deserves to be and aIe accotdiagly set aside/quashed. As a consequence, all the iDpugned orders gettiag quashed, the consequeatial ordets passed by the respondent Departhent pursuaat to the lrotices issued under Sectioa l4Z aad 14g Eould also get quashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reason ee are quashing the consequeEtial o.der is oa the p.inciples that wher the iritiatioa of the proceediags itself was procedurally rf,rong, the subsequeDt orde.s also gets nullified autoDnatically. 37. The pretinirary objcction raised by the petitioner is sustailed and all these Frit lrctitions stalrds auowed on this verrr jurisdictional issue. Since the impugtted notices ald orders are gettiug quashed on the point ofjurisdictio!, we are lot irlcuaed to procecd further and decide the other issues raised by the petitioEer which stands reserved to be raised and coltelded i[ an appropriate proceediags. 38. Siace the Hon'bte Supreoe Court had, in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supn, as a one-time lueasure exercisittg the qowers under A.rticle 142 of the Constitution of IDdia, tn 3 permitted the Revenue to proceed utrder the eubstituted provisions, alld this Court allowing the Petitiors oaly otr thc procedural flaw, the tight conferred on the Reveaue would remaia reserved to proceed further if they so want from the stage of the order of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra. 39. I{o order as to costs.\" 5. In view of the consensus arrived, the impugned Show Cause notice and consequential orders passed in this writ petition are set aside. Liberty is reserved to both the parties to take respective stand and to proceed in accordance with law as per pa-ragraph No.38 of the order dated 14.09.2023 in W.P.No.25903 of 2022. 6. The u.rit petition is allowed. No costs. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. //TRUE COPY// To, 1 Office of The lncome Tax Officer, ward 1, Khammam/ Telangana State ' The Principal Chief Commissioner Of lncome Tax.Telangana And A P' ivoerrnr.i, ir iowers, AC Guards' Masab Tank, Hyderabad TheNationalFacelessAssessmentCenter,lncorneTaxDepartment'New Delhi One CC to SRI THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SMT BOKARO SAPNA REDDY (Jr' SC FOR INCOME TAX) loPUCl /trtrN KlrritAR Dy soLICtroR ceru ol rr'rorn One CC to SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR DY SOLICIT( 2 3 4 6 loPUcl 7. Two CD CoPies GBR GJP +'y I SD/. T. JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR _- | seciror.r o[prcen HIGH COURT DATED:2410712024 ORDER WP.No.19572 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITTON WITHOUT COSTS q tA ( H {:t{t. .- {il tqT M .J )- t tJtt:\" ffi "