Manohar Rao Vangapally V. Union of India and 4 Others

WP/28884/2021

AI Insights

The petitioner, Manohar Rao Vangapally, challenged a notice issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1), Hyderabad, under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which sought to reopen his assessment for the year 2017-18. The petitioner argued that the procedure prescribed under Section 148A was not followed, rendering the notice void. The court initially issued a stay on the notice and later, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal, directed the Income Tax Officer to proceed in accordance with the law.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 721572 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 12-07-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: NAMAVARAPU RAO; B NARASIMHA SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: AVINASH DESAI
• Keywords: Arbitrary; Assessment Year 2017-18; Contravention; Illegal; Income Tax; Jurisdiction; Notice; Reopen assessment; Unconstitutional; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 148; 143(3); 148A; 226

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION NO: 28884 OF 2021 Between: Manohar Rao Vangapally, S/o. V. Ranga Rao, Aged 65 years, Residing at Plot No. 399, Road No. 81, Phase-lll, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad - 500 033. ...PETITIONER AND 1 Union of lndia, Represented by its Revenue Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Office of Ministry of Finance, Room No. 46, North Block, New Delhi - 1 10 001 . lncome Tax Officer, Ward 4 (1), Hyderabad. lncome Tax Officer, Ward 4(2), Hyderabad. Additional Commissioner of lncome Tax, Range-4, Hyderabad. Commissioner of lncome Tax, Rnage-4, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 oI 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 a direction, particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents, particularly Respondent No. 2, in issuing the lmpugned nottce under Section 148 dated 30.06.2021 bearing Notice No. ITBA/ AST/S/1 4812021-2211- 330'1 7549(1) read along with the letter daled 0711012021 bearing Letter No. Letter No. ITBA/ ASItFt17t2O21-2211036222065(1) seeking to reopen the assessment of the Petjtioner for the Assessment Year 2017-18 as being without jurisdiction, arbilrary, illegal, unconstitutional and in contravention of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 , and consequently. (a) Set aside the lmpugned Notice dated 3010812021 bearing Notice No. ITBA/ AST/S/1 4812021-2211-33017549(1) issued by the 2nd Respondent (b) Set aside the Letter dated O711012021 bearing Letter No. Letter No. ITBA/ ASTlFl1712021-2211036222065(1) issued by the 2nd Respondent, 2 3 4 5 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 arising out of the lmpugned notice under Section 148 dated 30.06.2021 bearing Notice No. ITBA/ AST/S/1 4812021-2211-33017549(1) read along with the letter dated 0711012021 bearing Letter No. Letter No. ITBA/AST/F/1 7 I 2021 -221 I 036222065(1 ) issued by the 2nd Respondent. Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 : SRI.NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO(ASSGI) Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 5 : SRI.B.NARASHIMA SHARMA The Court made the following: ORDER |.A.NO:1 OF 2021 Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI.AVINASH DESAI THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHIIYAN AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA Writ Petition No.28884 of 2O2L ORDER: Per the Hoi'ble the Chief Justrce IJJJaI BhuAan) Heard Mr. Avinash Desai, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. B. Mukharjee, learned counsel for respondent No.1; and Ms. Sapna Reddy, learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 5. 2. By filing this petition under Article 226 ol the Constitution of India, petitioner has assailed legaiity and validity of the notice dated 30.06.2021 issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward a( 1), Hyderabad, under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 196 1 (briefly, 'the Act' hereinafter), for the assessment year 2017- 18. 3. This Court by order dated 16.11.2021 had issued notice and granted stay. Relevant portion of the order dated 16.11.2021 reads as under: \"According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the procedure prescribed under Section 148A of the Act was not followed before issuing the impugned notice, 2 which has rendered the impugned notice void' His further contention is that return of income filed by the petitioner was subjected to scrutiny, whereafter, regular assessment order was passed under Section i43(3) of the Act. By way of the impugned notice, the assessing authority is seeking to review the assessment already made, which is nothing but a cha;rge of opinion' Issue noti.ce, returnable in six weeks. Mr. B.Narasimha Sarma, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax waives notice for all the respondents. Respondents to file counter alfrdavit by tJle next date. In the meanwhile, there shall be stay of the impugned notice dated 30.06.2021.\" 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that insofar the challenge on the ground that assessing authority did not follow the procedure under Section 148A of the Act is concerned, the same has been answered by the Supreme Court in Unlon of India v. Ashish Agarwalr' Following the said decision, respondents have issued notice to the petitioner on 01.06.2022 to which petitioner has submitted reply on 21.06.2022 including on the point of change of oPinion. ' zoii scc online sc 543 J 5. In view of the aforesaid, respondent No.2 i.e', Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1), Hyderabad, shall now pass appropriate order in accordance with 1aw' 6. This disposes of the writ petition 7. Miscellaleous applications pending, if any, sha-ll stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs' SD/. P, PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// eD SECTION OFFICER To l.TheRevenueSecretary,Unionoflndia,lr4inistryofFinance'Department^of ' idr6.i,., otiice ot rrrrinirtrv ot Finance,'Room No. 46, North Block, New Delhi - 110 001. 2. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 4(1), Hyderabad' 5. The tncore Tax Officer, W ard 4(2), Hyderabad' i. i'riu AoJitionaiCommissioner of 'lncome Tax, Range-4, Hyderabad' s. fhu Cor.issioner of lncome Tax, Rnage-4'-Hyderabad ' O. One CC to SRI.AVINASH DESAI, Advocate [OPUq i. o;; cc i\" sni.r.rnrr,rAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAo es-g.G^l) [oPUC] 8. o;; cc io Sni.e.runRASHlMA SHARIUA, Advocate IoPUC] 9. Two CD CoPies 10. One spare coPY S.A GJPN-, HIGH COURT DATED:1210712022 ORDER WP.No.28884 ot 2021 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. 1B JUL 2[TI e 5l A l'E :'..t.>l i'- c t: 'N1 blt f' ./.io //** J Ct it') i /.\"r .. , 0 "