MADDA DEVADANAM V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP/25663/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Madda Devadanam, the petitioner, challenging notices issued by the Income Tax Department under Sections 148A(b) and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2015-16. The petitioner argued that the notices were issued arbitrarily, illegally, and in violation of the principles of natural justice, as well as the statutory provisions of the Act. The core issue was the denial of an adequate opportunity to respond to the show cause notice and the failure to consider the petitioner's request for an extension of time to submit his response. The court found that the principles of natural justice were violated as the petitioner was not given an adequate opportunity to be heard.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 680079 (HC-ANDHRA_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 23-08-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: VIJAY PUNNA
• Assessee Lawyers: SINDHU KUMARI
• Keywords: Extension of time; Faceless Jurisdiction; Income Tax; Natural Justice; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 148; 148A(b); 148A(d); 226

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION NO: 25663 OF 2022 Between: Madda Devadanam, S/o Lazarus, aged 58 years, 36-9-4, Nehru Nagar Labbipet, Vijayawada.520 010. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Income Tax Officer, Ward No.II (1), Vijayawada. 2. Principal Commissioner, Income Tax, Revenue Colony, Siddhartha Public School Road, Moghalrajapuram, Vijayawada ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus or any other writ or order or direction declaring that the impugned order dated 01/04/2022 issued by the 1®' Respondent herein bearing DIN / Notice No. ITBA/AST/F/148A/2 022- 23/1042427331(1) for the Assessment year 2015 - 16 to the petitioner as arbitrary, illegal and as unjust and as in gross violation of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside / quash the same and pass b)lt is therefore just and essential that the Hon'ble court may be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus or any other writ or order or direction declaring the impugned notice dated 17*'^ March, 2022 purporting to be under Sec. 148A (b) of the Income tax Act, 1961 and the Notice dated 03/04/2022 issued by the 1®‘ Respondent under Sec. 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961 as arbitrary, illegal and as without jurisdiction, and as being violative of faceless jurisdiction under Income Tax Authorities scheme of 2022 and direct the Respondents not to enforce or act upon the said Notices/Orders. lA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 suspend the operation of the impugned Notice bearing No ITBA/AST/F/148A/2022-23/1042427331(1) issued by the Respondent to the petitioner with PAN No. AHBPI /I5829R, pending disposal of above Writ petition. lA NO: 2 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 permit the petitioner to file this Additional affidavit in support of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner :M/S C SINDHU KUMARI Counsel for the Respondent No’s. 1 & 2: SRI VIJAY KUMAR PUNNA, SC FOR INCOME TAX The Court made the following ORDER: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3443] AT AMARAVATI APHC010417302022 ■UM WRIT PETITION NO; 25663 of 2022 ...Petitioner Madda Devadanam Vs. ...Respondent(s) The Income Tax Officer and Others ********** C SINDHU KUMARI, Advocate(s) for Petitioner(s) VIJAY KUMAR PUNNA, Advocate(s) for Respondent(s) CORAM ;THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA ; 23^ August, 2024. PER DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR. CJ: DATE The present petition has been filed challenging the notice dated 17.03.2022 issued under Section 148A (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and the notice dated 03.04.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act, on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice as also the statutory provisions of the Act. The case of the petitioner is that a notice under Section 148A (b) of the Act, dated 17.03.2022 was issued by the assessing officer requiring the petitioner to show cause as to why a notice under Section 148 of the Act be not issued. Response was required to be filed electronically on or before 2, 25.03.2022. .4 2 HCJ & NJ^J WP 25663 2022 In response to the aforementioned notice, an e-mail is stated to have 3. been sent on 24.03.2022, seeking an extension of time for submission of the response. This communication was acknowledged to have been received by the official respondents. Finally without intimating the petitioner, as regards his request for extension of time, an order under clause (d) of Section 148A of the Act came to be passed on 01.04.2022, holding the case to be a fit one for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act for the assessment year 2015- 16. As per this order, the petitioner is stated to have not submitted any reply to the show cause notice dated 17.03.2022. However, no mention at all was made to the request made by the petitioner with regard to the extension of time for submission of reply sought for by him. Finally, a notice under Section 148 came to be issued on 03.04.2022 for the assessment year 2015-16. 4. Although in the response filed by the respondents, a stand has been taken that there was no such request filed by the petitioner, yet the acknowledgement placed on record by the petitioner does reflect that the request for adjournment made electronically, had been submitted successfully. Provisions of Section 148-A (b) envisage service of notice upon the assessee being not less than seven (07) days and not exceeding thirty (30) days from the date of issuance of the notice and even thereafter, which time may further be extended on the basis of an application filed in that behalf. In the present case, the petitioner was given seven days time only, in regard to which an extension was sought and could have been given for a u 3 HCJ & NJSJ WP_25663_2022 period not exceeding 30 days at least. However, without considering request, the respondents proceeded to issue the order under Section 148 (d) as also the notice under Section148. such a 5. In our opinion, principles of natural justice clearly have been violated the petitioner was not given an adequate opportunity of being heard request for extension for submitting his reply was ignored totally. Be that as it may, we accordingly allow the writ petition and set aside the order dated 01.04.2022 under Section148-A (d) and notice under Section 148. The petitioner is directed to submit his reply within two weeks from today to the notice dated 17.03.2022 under Section 148-A (b) for which the as as his respondents shall open the portal to enable the petitioner to upload his reply. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SOI- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The Income Tax Officer, Ward No.II (1), Vijayawada. 2. The Principal Commissioner, Income Tax, Revenue Colony, Siddhartha Public School Road, Moghalrajapuram, Vijayawada 3. One CC to M/S C SINDHU KUMARI, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRI. VIJAY KUMAR PUNNA, SC FOR INCOME TAX DEPT [OPUC] 5. Three CD Copies PRK HIGH COURT DATED:23/08/2024 ORDER WP.No.25663 of 2022 X c Qc? ?n?H J ^ Curfenl Section ALLOWING THE WP, WITHOUT COSTS "