M/s Bhavya Constructions Private Limited V. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1), Hyderabad and The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 1, Hyderabad

WP/25680/2022

AI Insights

The case involves M/s Bhavya Constructions Private Limited, which filed a writ petition challenging the assessment order and notice issued by the Income Tax Department for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The petitioner argued that the proceedings were initiated under the unamended provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is not sustainable post the amendment effective from April 1, 2021, requiring a faceless approach and issuance of notices under Section 148A. The court referenced a similar batch of writ petitions (W.P.No.25903 of 2022) decided on September 14, 2023, where similar objections were sustained, leading to the quashing of the notices and orders on jurisdictional grounds.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 805401 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 06-11-2023
• 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 KARTIKEYA
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Faceless Proceedings; Income Tax; Jurisdictional issue; Mandamus; Natural Justice; Writ petition
• Section: 148; 148A(d); 148A; 226

Judgement Text

"[ 3379 I HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (SPecial Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAII KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION NO:25680 OF 2022 Between: AND 1 M/s Bhavya Constructions Private Limited , 8-2-293l 2lAll to 3, Plot No. A-1 ' t it f toor,' Bhavyas Spoorthi Bhavan, Road No.1, Film Nagar, Jubilee Hills, Hvderabad - 5d0 096, Telangana, Represented by its Managing Director, Mi. Aditya Venigalla, S/o. Mr. V. Ananda Prasad. ...PETITIONER The Deputy Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle - 1(1)' HyderaOr9,^Fgg7 No.722,'7li Floor, lT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500 004, Telangana. 2. The Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax - 1, Hyderabad, Room -N 7th Floor,'lT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank' Hyderabad - 50 Telangana. 11, 04, ...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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or Direction, declaring: a. the order daled 28.04.2022, passed uis 14SA(d) of the Act, vide DIN and Notice No. ITBA/AST/F/148N2022-2311O42890872(1), by the 1st Respondent, for the Assessment Year 2018 - 19; and b. the notice dated 28.04.2022, issued by the 1st Respondent, u/s '148 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 , vide DIN and Notice. ITBA/AST1S/148-112022- 23t1042890931(1), for the Assessment Year 2018 - 19; o.7 00 as arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, void-ab-initio, violative of the principles of natural justice apart from being vrolative of Articles 14, 19(1Xg) and 265 of the Constitution of lndia and Sec. 148A of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 , and consequently set aside the same in the interests of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section '1 51 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 any recovery, pursuant to the notice dated 28.04.2022, issued by the 1st Respondent, u/s '148 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, vide DIN & Notice: ITBA/AST/S/148_112022- 2311042890931(1), for the Assessment Year 2018 - 19, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A.V.A.SIVA KARTIKEYA Counsel for the Respondents: M/s. B.SAPNA REDDY, Jr. SC FOR INCOME TAX The Court made the following: ORDER I THE HON'BLE SRJ JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI W.P. No.25680 of2022 ORDER: nce' tto n'ble Si Justicc P.SAII KOSIIY) 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. 2. The instant petition has been filed challenging the Assessment Order passed by respondent No.1 under section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as uthe Act\") dated 28.04 .2022 for the Assessment Year 2Ol8-19. 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 came into effect from 01.O4.2021, 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. Whereas, it has been contended by the petitioner that in the instant case, reopening has been initiated by the Juridictional Assessing Officer. In respect of the said objection that the petitioner had raised, he relied upon the recent batch of writ .K !- ,, - uqffi .r .i petitions decidcd by this very Bench on 14'O9'2023 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 apart from the aforesaid objection, there have been other various objections also which the petitioner has raised in the writ petition. 5. So far as this contention of the learned counsel for the Department is concerned, this Bench, while disposing of W.P.No.25903 of 2022 and batch had taken note of the same in paragraph Nos.37 & 38 which is reproduced herein under: \"37. Tine preliminary objection raised by the Petitioner is sustained and all these writ petitions stalds allowed on this very jurisdictionat issue. Since the impugned notices and orders are getting quashed on the point of jurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed lurther and decide the other issues raised by the petitioner which stands reserved to be rajsed and contended in art appropriat c proceed ings. \" 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one-time measure exercising the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, permitted the Revenue lo proceed under the substituted provisions, and ttris Court allorving the petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right conferred on the Revenue would remain 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. 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 ailowed on the objection of the petitioner that the proceedings have not been