Lissv Varghese, D/o. Thomas Varghese V. The National Faceless Assessment Center, Income Tax Department, New Delhi, India and Income Tax Officer, Ward B 1 Hyderabad and The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Ministry of Finance, Government of India

WP/6056/2024

AI Insights

The case involves a writ petition filed by Lissv Varghese challenging the reassessment order and related notices issued by the Income Tax Department. The petitioner argued that the reassessment and subsequent proceedings were conducted under the unamended provisions of the law, which is not sustainable post-amendment. The respondents did not dispute the procedural flaws but highlighted other objections not addressed in the previous batch of writ petitions. The court, referencing its earlier decision, allowed the writ petition on the grounds of improper procedure under the amended law, specifically the requirement for faceless assessment and proper notice under Section 148A.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 808697 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 07-03-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: WP.No.25903 of 2022 & batch, dated 14.09.2023
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, Section 151 CPC
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SUNITA
• Assessee Lawyers: M NAGA DEEPAK
• Keywords: Arbitrary; Faceless assessment; Illegal; Jurisdiction; Reassessment order; Void; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 148; 151; 148A(d)

Judgement Text

"Between: HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF IMARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION NO: 6056 OF 2024 [ 337e ] ed about 56 RYo. H NO 15 43 AMPALLY, K.V.RANGAREDDY ...PETITIONER Lissv Varqhese, D/o. Thomas Varghese, Ag HUDACOLONY, CHANDANAGAR SERILING 500050, Telangana AND 1. The National Faceless Assessment Center, lncome{ax Department, New Delhi, India 2. lncome Tax Officer, Ward B 1 Hyderabad 3. The Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department tt/inistry of Finance Government of lnd ia ...RES'.NDENTS 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 a writ, order or direction, more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring order under section 148A(d) dated 30-03-2023 bearing DIN ITBA/AST/F/148A12022-2311O51637706(1), the consequent notice dated 30-03- 2023 uts. 148 bearing DIN ITBAJASTIS,I14B 112022-2311051725988(1) and the consequent Reassessment order dated 31-O1-2O24 bearing DIN ITBA/AST/S/147t2O23-2411O60325801(1) as being void, illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, violate of Article 14 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently set aside the same. lA NO: 1 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 collection of tax pursuant to the Reassessment ord er dated 31 -o 1 -2024 bea ri n g Dl N ITBA/AST I S I 1 47 I 2023- 24 I 1 06032580 1 (1 ). Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M.NAGA DEEPAK Counsel for the Respondents: M/s. SUNITA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI SUNDARI R PISUPATI, Sr SC for lncome Tax Dept The Court made the following: ORDER ! THB HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJT IVRIT PETITION No.6O56 OF 2024 ORDER:lper Hon'ble Si Justice P.SAM KOSHY) Heard Mr.M.Naga Deepak, iearned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Sunita, learned Standing Counsel representing Ms.Sundari R Pasupati, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department for respondents. Perused the material available on record. 2. The instalt Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the following relief: nto issue o writ order or direction more porticulorly in the noture oI writ of mondomus decloring order under Section L48Ad doted 30/03/202i beoring DIN ITBA/AST/F/148A/202223/10516377061 the consequent notice doted io/03/2023 u/s 148 bedring DtN ITBNAST/S/14g 1/202223/10517259881 ond the consequent Reossessment order doted 31/07/2024 beoring DtN TBA/AST/S/147/202324/10603258011 os being void illegol orbitrory without jurisdiction violote oI Article 14 of the Constitution of lndio ond consequently set oside the some\". 3. One of the contentions that the petitioner has raised present Writ Petition is that under L in the the amended 2 PSI(,J & I rfR,J W.P.No.6056 of 2O24 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 148A 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. 4 . Whereas, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, in the instant case, reopening has been initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. In support of his contention, he relied upon the recent judgment rendered by this very Bench in WP.No.25903 of 2022 & batch, dated 14.O9.2023 wherein this Court disposed of the batch of writ petitions to the limited extent. 5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Department does not dispute that the said objection was decided in the aforesaid batch of Writ Petitions. However, he further contended that apart from the aforesaid objection, there have been other various objections also which the petitioner has raised in the writ petltlon lt ,:', 3 PSK,J & NTR,J W.P.No.6O56 of 2024 6. So far as this contention of the learned counsel for the respondent-Depa-rtment is concerned, this Bench, while disposing of said batch of writ petitions, had taken note of the same at paragraph Nos.37 & 38 which are reproduced herein under: \"37. TLe preliminary objection raised by the petittoner is sustained and oll tlrcse utit petitions stands alloued on this uery juisdictional issue. Since the impugned notices and orders (1re getting quashed on the point of juisdiction, u)e are not inclined to proceed further and decide the other issues raised bg the petitioner uhich stands reserued to be raised and contended in an appr opiate pro ceeding s. \" \"38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court hod, in the case of Ashi-sh Agarutal, supra, os a one-time measure exercising the potuers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, pennitted the Reuenue to proceed under the substituted prouisions, and this Court allotuing the petitions onlg on the procedural flattt, the right conferced on the Reuenue would remain resented to proceed further if they so utant from the stage of the order of the Supreme Couft in the case of Ashlsh Aganoal, supra.\" 7. 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-amended provision which is other-wise not sustainable. { I I l ,-/- 4 PSI(,J & MTR,J W.P.No.6056 of 2024 B. As has been held by this Bench in the aforesaid batch matters, the rights of the parties would stald reserved as is envisaged at paragraph Nos.37 & 38 of the said order passed in the batch of r.n rit petitions. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscelianeous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// iltisfiti=#ttstR T' SD/- N. SECTION OFFICER The National Faceless Assessment Center' lncome-tax Department' New To 4 6 PSK, GJP 1 2 3 '\":'lhy+:X9l-?a^Y?I1.g*1[X\"5*r11*\"nrvrinistryorFinance The Assessment Unlt' lncol ElfHf; tfli$,loltl*\",Eot+fsru%?J,Ygr\"meraxDeptroPUCl Two CD CoPies A ay I HIGH COURT DATED:0710312024 ORDER WP.No.6056 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS. I @ I rj iri :l:l o^ , i') 1 -4. I I a{' $' l l' i9 "