Mr. Dinesh Mohandas Lalwani V. The Income Tax Officer - Ward 10(1), Hyderabad and The Income Tax Officer (International Taxation) - 1, Hyderabad and The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, Hyderabad and The Income Tax Officer - Ward 11(1), Hyderabad and The Central Board of Direct Taxes, Represented by its Chairman

WP/3312/2024

AI Insights

The case involves a writ petition filed by Dinesh Mohandas Lalwani against various Income Tax authorities challenging an assessment order for the assessment year 2014-15. The petitioner argued that the assessment was conducted under the un-amended provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was not sustainable post the amendment that came into effect on April 1, 2021. The respondents did not dispute the procedural flaws but contended that there were other objections raised by the petitioner. The court referenced a previous judgment where similar procedural issues were addressed, leading to the quashing of the notices and orders on jurisdictional grounds.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 677029 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 08-02-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Ashish Agarwal
• Laws Referred To: Constitution of India, Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: J V PRASAD
• Assessee Lawyers: A V A SIVA KARTIKEYA
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Income Tax; Natural Justice; Writ of Mandamus; Violation of Articles
• Section: 144; 14; 148A; 144C(3); 265; 226; 19(1)(g)

Judgement Text

"[ 337e ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION NO:3312 oF 2024 Between: AND 1 It/lr Dinesh Mohandas Lalwani, S/o trrlr. Mohandas Bhawandas Lalwani aoed 19 Vq.t: Occ. Business, FIat No. 503, 5th Floor, Krishna Kunj Apartmeits, Street No. 4, West lvlaredpally, Secunderabad - 500 026, Telanghnd. ...PETITIONER The lncome Tax Offrcer - Ward 10(1), Hyderabad, l.T. Towers, AC Guards, lVlasab Tank, Hyderabad - 500 004, Teldngana. The lncome lax Officer {lnternatronal Taxatron) - 1, Hyderabad, Aayakar Bhawan, Opposite LB Stadium. Basheerbagh. Hyderabad - 5OO 004, Telangana. The Principal Chief Commrssioner of Income Tax, Andhra pradesh and Telang_ana, Hyderabad Room No.. 922,gth Floor, 'B' Block, l.T.Towers, 10-2- 3, AC Guards, Hyderabad - 500 004, Telangana The lncome Tax Officer - Ward '11(1), Hyderabad, Signature Towers, Sy. No.. 6(P) of Kondapur Sy No. 37(P) of Kothiguda. Oppoiite Botanicat Gardens, Serlrngampally Mandal. Ranga Reddy Distnct. Hyderabad - 500 084, Telangana The Central Board of Direct Taxes, Represented by its Chairman, Department of Revenue, lr,4rnistry of Finance, Goveinment of lnfoia, Secretariai Suitdings, New Delhi - 1 10 001 2 3 4 5 ...RESPONDENTS Petrtion under Article 226 of the Constrtution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of l /andamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, declaring the Assessment Order passed by the 2nd Respondent, u/s 144 r/w Sec. 144C(3) of the lncome Tax Act, '1961, dated 17.O7.2023, bearing DlN. ITBA/AST 15114412023-24/1054393398( 1), for the Assessment yeat 2014 - '15, as arbitrary, illegal bad rn law, void-ab-initio, vrolative of the pnnciples of natural justrce, apart from being violative of Artictes 14, 19(1)(g) and 265 of the Constitution of lndia & Sec 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and to consequently set aside the same in the interests of 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 petrtion, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings, including any recovery, pursuant to the Assessment Order passed by the 2nd Respondent, uls 144 tlw Sec. 144C(3) of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 , dated 17.07.2023, beanng DIN lf BAlASf lsl144l2023- 2411054393398(1), for the Assessment Year 2014 - 15, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition, Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A.V-A. SIVA KARTIKEYA Counsel for the Respondents: SRI J.V. PRASAD (Sr. SC FOR INCOME TAX) The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI THE HONOURABLE S*# TICE P.SAM KOSHY JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI trIRIT ON No.3 TI 312 0r. 2o24 ORDER: (per Hon,ble Sn,Iustice P.SAM KOSH?) The instalt Writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articl e 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the following reiief ;rii.o:X: frn*2' .of Mandamus or ana other Assessmen/ ora.r?'!t' ,or Direction declaing t; 144 r/ u.t s\".. j44cPo\"\"ed by the 2\"t resoondeit, u/s d.ated. tz.oz.zl?sof 'n\"^j::T' r\"*^a.t, igoi, rrBA/ ASr/ s/ t nn/ i6i s.z, t rZ?#f* n, t rlj* r., yil assessmenr u.or ,o.l_1 ,.f, \"r^oriiii6l,llesar, bad in taw, uotd-ab_initio. uiotatiue.\"f tn. pii\"ii't3 of naturat :;:';\"?:f,[:tr !i:r3 .t^'\"ii'\";i iiii\"Z\" , 1 t e( t )(g) rn.o*.-rk'i;;i;';',\":\"\":\"1::::&:\":;\":,r::j!rlz same in the interest ord'ers as rn \" ,tr'o!) ,1[-justbe; and pZss such other e Lourt mag deem fi.t and proper_. 2. One of the contentions that the petitioner has raised in the present Writ petition is that under the amended pror,rsions of the Act which came into effect from O1.O4.2O21 , the respondents, while proceeding under Section 14g of the Act, were required to issue notice under Section 14gA and provide an opportunity of hearing to the PSK,J & NTR'J W.P.No.3372 ol2024 assessee. As per the amended provision of iaw' the proceedings to be drawn are also in a faceless manner' 3. 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' 4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Department does not dispute that the said objection was decided in the a-foresaid batch of Writ Petitions. However, he further contended that apart from the aJoresaid 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 respondent-Department is concerned, this Bench' while disposing of said batch of writ petitions, had taken note of I I I i i f -r.....-- PSX,J & MTR,J W.P.No.3372 of 2O24 the same at paragraph Nos.37 & 38 which are reproduced herein under: \"37. The preliminory objection raised by the petitioner is sustained and all these uit petitions stands allouted on this uery juisdictional issue. Since the impugned notices and orders are getting quashed on the point of jurisdiction, LUe are not inclined to proceed further and decide the other rssues raised bg tle petitioner u.'hich stands resented to be raised and contended in on ap pro piate p ro cee ding s. \" \"38. Since th-e Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the case of Ashish Agaru.tal, supra, as a one-time measl[e exercising the potuers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, pennitted the Reuenue to proceed under the substituted prouisions, and this Court allouing the petitions only on the procedural flau.t, the ight confened on the Reuenue u.tould remain reserued to proceed further if they so uant from the stage of the order of the Supreme Court in the case oJ Ashish Agartuol, supro.\" 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 allowed on the objection of the petitioner that the proceedings have not been drawn in accordance with the amended provision but under the un-arnended provision which is otherwise not sustainable 7. As has been held by this Bench in the aforesaid batch I I I I matters, the rights of the parties would stand reserved as is 4 re PSK,J 6L NTR,J w.P.No.33 72 of 2024 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. //TRUE COPYii SD/: G.SIREEsHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR A _-- sEclS( oFFtcER To, 3 4 2 6 7 I BN bJ The lncome Tax Officer - Ward -1-0(1I Hyderabad, l.T Towers, AC Guards, IVlasab Tank, Hyderabad - S00 004. Tel5ngana. Ilg l19\"ry. Tax.Officel (tnternatronal Taxltron) - 1, Hyderabad, Aayakar Bhawan. Opposite LB Stadium. Basheerbagh. Hyderabad _ 500 00,i, Telangana. The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax, Andhra pradesh and J\"l\"lS:n?, Hyderabad Rgoq-lo 922.9th Ftoor. A; Brocl, I T Towers, 10_2_ J AU Guards, Hyderabad _ 500 004. Telanqana. lhe lncome Tax Officer - Ward 1.1(1). Hydeiabad. Signature Towers. Sy. No. SfII :11_\"-ldl,ptlr.: sy; ryo-: 3z(p) of koiliasuoa, oppdsiie-sotanrcat Gar'deni, berilngampalty Mandal. Ranqa Reddy Dislnct. Hyd'erabad - 500 0g4, Telangana L]l_9, _9!\" 1Tl, n, Department of Revenue, The Central Board of Drrect Taxes, rvrrnrstry ot Frnance, Government of lndia, Secretariat Buildings, New Delhi _ 1 10 001 Qne QC to SRI A V A. S|VA KART|KEYA Advocate IOpUCt gne qq to sRt J V PRASAD (Sr SC FoR lrucOrr,ld rnxitopucl Two CD Copies 5 ts /\" rl ( HIGH COURT DATED:0810212024 ORDER WP.No.33f 2 ol 2024 6( J c o 01 l{[H 202[ ,1 ( k -,,\"1., -;5;- Ort ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS Gg'*'' B "