Mohan Reddy Bobbala V. The Income Tax Officer

WP/7766/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Mohan Reddv Bobbala, the petitioner, challenging the assessment order passed by the Income Tax Department under the unamended provisions of the Income-tax Act. The petitioner argued that the reassessment and subsequent orders were issued without following the procedural requirements of the amended Act, which came into effect on 01/04/2021. The respondents included various officials from the Income Tax Department. The court's decision was influenced by a previous judgment on similar issues, where it was held that the procedural lapses in issuing notices and conducting assessments under the old provisions were not sustainable.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 694186 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 26-03-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Ashish Agarwal case
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SUNDARI PISUPATI; GADI KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: DUNDU MANMOHAN
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Faceless assessment; Natural Justice; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 148A; 226

Judgement Text

"[ 337e ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.7766 OF 2024 Between: Mohan Reddv Bobbala, S/o Adi Reddy Bobbala, Aged about 53 years, -O-cc -Govt' Service, H. N6. 2-15, Ramchandrapur, i(oheda, Karimnagar, Telangana - 505473' ...PETITIONER AND 1 The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 2, Karimnagar, lncome Tax Office, Aayakar Bhavan, Near Natraj Theatre, Karimnagar, Telangana - 505001. The Princioal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax AP and TS' 1Oth Floor, C- Block. l.T.'Towers, 1O-2-3, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad-500004. The Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department, National..., Faceless Assessmenl Centre, Delhi, Ministry of Finance, Room No' 4O1 ' 2'\"' Floor' E- Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi-1 10003. ...RESPONDENTS 2 3 Petrtion under Article 226 of the constitutlon of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate wril order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the Assessment order dl. 0810312024 passed by the 3rd respondent u/s 147 r.w.s 14411448 of the lncome-tax Act for Ay. 2015-16 vide DIN No. ITBA/AST/S/14712023-2411062268249(1), which is passed as a consequence of the order passed u/s 148A(d) dL1uO4l2O22 vide DIN No ITBA/AST/F/14 8Al2O22-23t1O4276611O(1) and the notice u/s 148 dt.18to4l2o22 vide DIN No. ITBA/AST/S'1148-112022-2311042766203(1 ), issued bv l: the JAO(1't responcient) instead of FAO(3'd respondent), void, illegal, and contrary to the provisions of lncome-tax Act and contrary to the Principles of Natural Justice 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 pursuant to the Assessment Order dt. 08/03/2024 passed by the 3rd respondent uls 147 r.w.s 14411448 of the lncome-tax Act for A.Y. 2015- 16 vide DIN No ITBA/AST/S/14712023-2411062268249 (1), and may pass such other order(s) as the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interests of substantial .iustice. as otherwise the Petitioner would be put to irreparable loss and severe injury Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI DUNDU MANMOHAN Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: Ms. SUNDARI R. PISUPATI, SENIOR S.C. FOR INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following: ORDER i i 1r i i i I I I I I I I ! THE HONOIIRABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI WSTICE N.TI'I(ARAMJI WRIT PETITION NO.7766 oF 2024 ORDER:(per Ho n'ble Si Justice P'SAXI KOSHY) Heard Mr.Dundu Manmohan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms Sundari R Pisupati, learned Senior Standing Counsel for respondents' Perused the material available on record. 2. The instant Writ Petition has been hled by the petitioner under Articl e 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the following relief: \"to issue on oppropriote writ order or direction more porticulorly one in the noture of Writ ol Mondomus declorinq the Assessment order dt 08/03/2024 possed by the 3rd respondent u/s 747 r'w's 744/7448 ol the tncometox Act lor A.Y.2075-16 vide DIN No' ITBNAST/S/147/2023' 24/1062268249(1) which is possed os o consequence of the order possed u/s 148A(d) dt 18/04/2022 vide DtN No' tf BA/AST/F/148A/2O2223/1U27667707 ond the notice u/s 748 dt 1 8/04 /2O2 2 vi de Dt N No ||EA/AST/S/748-1/2O22-23/1O4 2766203 ( 1 ) issued by the JAO(lst respondent) insteod of FAO(3rd respondent)' os void, ittegot ond controry to the provisions ol lncome-tox Act ond controryio the Principles of Noturol Justice'\" 3. One of the contentions that the petitioner has raised in the present Writ Petition is that under the amended 2 PSI(,J & .^mR,J W.P.No.7766 of 2024 provisions of the Act which came into effect from Ol.O4.2O2l , the respondents, while proceeding under Section 148 of the Act, were requlred 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.259O3 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 vvhich the petitioner has raised in the writ petition. -.--1. 3 PSr,J & MrR,J W.P,No.7766 of 2024 6. 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 taken note of the same at paragraph Nos.37 & 38 which are reproduced herein under: I I \"37. The pretiminory objection raised bg the petitioner is sustained and all these uit petitions stands alloued on this uery juisdictional issue. Stne the impugned notices and orders are getting quashed on the point of jurisd.iction, 11.)e are not inclined to proceed. further and decide the other issues raised by the petitioner which stands reserued to be raised and ontended in an ap p ro p iate proceeding s. \" \"38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the case of Ashish Agarutal, supra, as a one-time measure exercising the pouers under Arlicle 142 of the Constituiion of India, permitted the Reuenue to proceed under the substituted prouisions, and th:'s Court allowing the petitions only on the procedural Jlaut, the ight cinfered on the Reuenue would remain reserued ti proceid Turther if tleg so uant from tle stage of the orier of the Supreme Court in the mse of Ashish Aganual, supra.\" 7. In vieu' 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' 4 PSI(,J d6 jV1rR J W.P.No.7766 oJ 2024 8. As has been held by this Bench in the aforesaid 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 batch of writ petitions. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- P. PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR t U_,- ,i //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 2, Karimnagar, lncome Tax Office, Aayakar Bhavan, Near Natraj Theatre, Karimnagar, Telangana - 505001. 2. The Principal Chief Commissioner o[ lncome Tax AP and TS, 1Oth Floor, C- Block, l.T. Towers, 10-2-3, A-C. Guards, Hyderabad-500004. 3. The Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, tvlinistry of Finance, Room No. 4O1 ,2nd Floor, E- Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadrum, Delhi-1 10003. 4. One CC to SRI DUNDU IVIANIVOHAN, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Ms. SUNDARI R. PISUPATI, Senior S.C. for lncome Tax Department [OPUC] 6. One CC to SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUIVAR, Deputy Solicitor General of lndia loPUCl 7. Two CD Copies MP GJP k HIGH COURT DATED:2610312024 'i r; L ',.) ..,, -, rr - cxJ ,^ , (f''r :- i! ;,;i'2il24 2i ;'tl -.4 // .';i:,')-'')l/oRDER t!) i);: WP.No.7766 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS "