Krishna Rao M/s Suvarnab i Developers Private Limited V. Income Tax Department, National e-Assessment Center, New Delhi and The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1), Hyderabad and The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 1, Hyderabad and The Central Board of Direct Taxes, Represented by its Chairman

WP/142/2024

AI Insights

The case involves M/s Suvarnab i Developers Private Limited, represented by its Executive Director, Mr. Meka Srinivas, challenging an assessment order passed by the Income Tax Department under Sections 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that the assessment order was arbitrary, illegal, and violated principles of natural justice, among other legal provisions. The main contention was that the proceedings were initiated under the un-amended provisions of the Act, despite the amendments that came into effect on April 1, 2021, which require a faceless assessment and a notice under Section 148A. The court referenced a batch of similar writ petitions decided on September 14, 2023, where similar jurisdictional issues were sustained.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 796541 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 04-01-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Ashish Agarwal
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: B SAPNA REDDY
• Assessee Lawyers: A V A SIVA KARTIKEYA
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Faceless Proceedings; Income Tax; Jurisdictional officer; Natural Justice; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 147; 148; 14; 144B; 148A; 265; 19(1)(g)

Judgement Text

"[ 3379 ] IN THE H G COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT URABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY AND OURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI RIT PETITION NO: 142 OF 2024 THE THE i$ k ,t\"t, TH DAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR Between: AND Krishna Rao M/s Suvarnab i Developers Private Limited, 8-2-595i3, Eden Gardens, Banjara Hills, Rodd No. 1, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad - 500 033, Telangana. Represented by its Executive Director, Mr. lVleka Srinivas, S/o Mr. Meka 1. Assessment U New Delhi, Ro New Delhi - 11 II ...PErroNER ;t ,ln\"orn\" Tax Department, National e- Assessment Center, om [,,1o. 401 , 2nd Floor, E- Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, 0 ob3. | 2. TheAssistant C*lfiiri..ion\"r. of lncome Tax, Circte 3(1), Hyderabad, { Signature TowetslOpp. Botanical Gardens, Sy. No. 6(P) oi Kondapur, Sy. I No. 37(P) of Kothllguda, Serilingampally Mandal, Kondapur, Hyderabad - 500 I 081. TelanoanalL I 3. The Principal C#ni.sion.r of lncome Tax - 1, Hyderabad, L T. Towers, 1O- 1 2-3, AC Guardsf Hyderabad - 500 004, Telangana. 4. The Centrat goJi$of Direct Taxes, Represented by its Chairman, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Goveinment of lnaia, Secretariat Buildings, New Delhi - 110 001 . I I ...RESP.NDEN'. Petition ,nd\"l- hli\"t\" 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated ih the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, declaring thd Assessment Order passed by the 1st Respondenl, u/s 147 rtw Sec. 1448 of tl6 lncome Tax Act, 1961 , dated 16.05.2023, bearing DlN. ITBA/AST/S/14712023-2411052885835(1), for the Assessment Year 2O13 - 14, as arbitrary, illegal, barr6dfby limitation, bad in law, void- ab- initio, violative of the r principles of natural jrlstice, apart from being violative of Artictes 14, 19(1)(g) and i265 of the Constitutidhlot lndia and Sec 148A of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, and I consequently set asidtfthe same in the interests of justice. rf I I 1llA NO: 1OF 2024 Petition under ,The Court made the lo,iow,nn, ORDER [[,.^,,, CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed id dLpport of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceddihgs, including any recovery, pursuant to the Assessment Order passed by the il $ Respondent, uls 147 r/w Sec. 1448 o' the lncome Tax Act, 1961, datedlfl'16.05.2023, bearing DlN. ITBA/.AST/S/14712023- 24t1O52885835(t ), fol the Assessment Year 2013 - 14, pendin3 disposal of the above Writ Petition, I I Counsbl to, tt \" petitliler: SRI A.v.A. SlvA KARTIKEYA Counsel for. tn\" n\"=ptlAentsr Ms. B. SAPNA REDDY, Jr. SC for INCOME TAX l I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.142 OF 2024 ORDER:/per Hon'ble Si Justice P.SAM KOSHY) Heard Mr. A.V.A. Siva Kartikeya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. B. Sapna Reddy, learned junior Standing Counsel for Income Tax appearing for the respondents. Perused the entire record. the Assessment Order passed by respondent No.l under Sections 147 read with Section l44B of the Income Tax Act, 196l (hereinafter referred to as \"the Act\") dated 16.O5.2023 for the Assessment Year 2Ol3-14. 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 carne into effect from O1.O4.2O2L, the respondents, while proceeding under Section 148 of the Act, were required to issue notice under Section 148A and provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. As per the amended provision of law, the 2. The instant Writ Petition has been Iiled challenging I ,-l I I I I I 2 proceedings to be drawn are also in a faceless manner. Whereas, it tras been contended by the petitioner that in the instant case, reopening has been initiated by the Jurisdictionai Assessing Ofhcer. In respect of the said objection that the petitioner had raised, he reliecl upon the recent batch of writ petitions decided by this very Bench on 14.09.2023 vide W.P.No.259O3 of 2022 and batch to the limited extent. 4. Learned counsel for the Department would not dispute of having decided the said objection in the aforesaid batch matters. However, learned counsel submits that zrpart from the aforesaid objection, there have been other valious objections also which the petitioner has raised in the vrrit petition. 5. 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 take n note of the same at p:rragraph Nos.37 & 38 which are reproduced herein under: I 3 I I \"37. TIE preliminary objection raised by the petitioner. iqsusfained and all these tuit petitions sfands allowed oh tmt uery juisdictionat issie. Since tte impugned iotices and orders are getting quashed on tLw point of juisdiction, u)e are not inclined to proceed further and decide the other issues raised bg the petitioner which stands reserued to be raised and contended in an appropiote proceeding s. \" \"38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the case of Ashish Agaruta| supra, as a one-time measure exercising the pouters under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, permitted the Reuenue to proceed under tle substituted prouisions, and this Court allowing the petitions only on tte procedural flaw, the right confened on the Reuenue would remain reserued to proceed further if tleg so utant from the stage of the order of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashish AgaruLal, supra.\" 6. In view of the same, 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. As has been held by this Bench in the aJoresaid batch matters, the rights of the parties would stand reserved as is envisaged at paragraph Nos.37 & 38 of the said order passed in the said batch of writ p€titions. No order as to 7 I 4 To, costs Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pt:nding, if SD/-Ei. SARASWATHI ASSISTANT EGIS //TRUE COPY// SE N OFFICER '1 . Assessment U Tax Department, National e- Assessment Center, New Delhi, Ro , 2nd Floor, E- Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, New Delhi - 11 J,J\".\",\"\" omNo.401 0 0b3. 2. The Assistant Cbrtmissioner of lncome Tax, Circle 3(1), Hyderabad, Signature Towe{Opp. Botanical Gardens, Sy. No. 6(P) of Kondapur, Sy. No. 37(P) of Kothdguda, Serilingampally Mandal, Kondapur, llyderabad - 500 .. ?fll Jn\",l??9iEJilhi..ion\", or tncome rax - 1 , Hyderabad, l. r. rowers, '10- 2-3, AC Guardsf Hyderabad - 500 004, Telangana. 4. The Central Bodrd of Direct Taxes, Represented by its Chairman, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of lndia, Secretariat Buildings, New Delhi - I 10 001 . 5. One CC 6. One CC 7. Two CD BN SB to SRI A.V.A. SIVA KARTIKEYA, Advocate [OPUC] any, shall stand closed. w IHIGH COURT DATED:0410112 24 ORDER WP.No.142 of 24 ALLOWING WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @ c,s* G* $ I rtB 2$2r .-1[s .,( * T T S E e 1 q o .> .A - I I {^* /r b "