Mr. Hyder Iqbal Ghulam V. Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Income Tax Department, Ministry of Finance and The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1

WP/6685/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Mr. Hyder Iqbal Ghulam, the petitioner, challenging the orders passed by the Income Tax Department under sections 147, 144, and 148 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2015-16. The petitioner argued that the orders were arbitrary, illegal, and void ab initio, as they violated the provisions of sections 148A and 149 of the Act, contrary to the CBDT circular, and not in accordance with the amended provisions that came into effect on April 1, 2021. The respondents included the Assessment Unit of the National Faceless Assessment Centre and the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1. The court's decision to allow the writ petition was based on the procedural flaws in the issuance of the orders, as they were not compliant with the amended legal requirements for faceless assessments.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 688181 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 14-03-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Ashish Agarwal
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Section 147 of the Act, Section 144 of the Act, Section 148A of the Act, Section 149 of the Act, Section 151A of the Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: B SAPNA REDDY
• Assessee Lawyers: A V RAGHURAM
• Keywords: Amended Provisions; Faceless assessment; Income Tax; Jurisdictional issue; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 147; 144; 149; 148A; 151A

Judgement Text

"[ 337s ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH 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: 6685 OF 2024 Between: Mr. Hyder lqbal Ghulam, S/o. Mr.Abdul Kareem, aged about 61 Agriculture, 1 4-1 60, Near Jamiya Masjid, Gajwel, /ledak-50227 B. years, Occ .....PETITIONER AND 1. Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, lncome Tax Department, Ministry of Finance, Room No. 401,2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi 1 10 003. 2. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 1, 8-1-22, 1st Floor, Subhash Road. Siddipet- 502103. .....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 pass an order or direction, especially one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAIVIUS holding that the order passed by 151 Respondent u/s. 147 t.w.s 144 r.w.s 1448 of the Act, dt.19.O2.2O24 with DIN No.|TBA/AST/5114712023- 2411061117222(1) for the Ay.2O15-16, as arbitrary. illegal, bad in law, void ab initio, apart from being violative of provisions of section 148A and section 149 of the Act and also contrary to the circular issued by CBD_T and provisions of section 'l 51A of the Act, and consequently set aside the order passed by 1st Respondent uls. 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 1448 of the Act, dt.19.O2.2024 with DIN No.|TBA/AST/5114712923-2411061117222(1) for the Ay.20'15-.16 and all consequential proceedings pursuant thereto. |.A.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, including any recovery, pursuant to the order passed bytheRespondentu/s,147r.w.s144r.w.s144E oftheAct,dl.19.02.2024with DIN No. lT BA/AST/S/1 4712023-2411061117222(1) for the Av 2O15-16' Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI A.V.RAGHU RAM Counsel for the Respondents : Ms B.SAPNA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR SRIJ.V.PRASAD (SC FOR INCOME TAX) The Court made the following ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI UIRIT PETITION No.6685 OF 2o24 ORDER:/per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY) Heard Mr.A.V.Raghu Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms.B.Sapna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel representing Mr.J.V.Prasad, learned Senior Standing Counsel for respondents. Perused the material available on record. 2. The instant Writ Petition has been filed !y the petitioner under Articl e 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the following relief: \"to poss on order or direction especiolly one in the noture of WRIT oF MANDAMUS holding thot the order possed by 757 Respondent u/s 747 r w s 744 r w s 1448 of the Act dt 19 02 2024 with DIN No ITBA/AST/S/147/2023 24/10617172221 Ior the Ay 201s-16 as orbitrory illegol bad in low void ob initio oport lrom being violotive of provisions of section 748A ond section 749 oJ the Act ond olso contrary to the circulor issued by CBDT ond provisions of section 151A of the Act ond consequently set oside the order passed by lst Respondent u/s 147 r w s 144 r w s 1448 of the Act dt 19 02 2024 with DIN No |TBA/AST/S/L47/292324/10611172221 for the Ay 2o1s16 ond oll conse q ue n ti o I proceed i n gs pursuont thereto\" 2 PSI(,J da lYrR,J W.P.No.6685 of 2O24 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 al'c also in a faceless manner' 4. Whereas, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, ir-r 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 14.09.2023 wherein this Court disposed of the batch of writ petitions to the limited extent. 5. On the other hand, learned Stalding 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 /i 3 PSK,J & NTR,J W.P.No.6685 of 2024 objections also which the petitioner has raised in the writ petition 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 pa-ragraph Nos.37 & 38 which are reproduced herein under: 37. 'firc preliminary objection raised bg the petitioner is sustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed on this uery juisdictional issue. Since the impugned notices and orders are qetti.ng qttashed on tLe, point of juisdiction, ue are not inclined to proceed further and decide th.e other issues roised by the petitioner which stonds reserued to be raised and contended irt on appropiate 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 Reuenue to proceed under the substifuted prouisions, and this Court allowing the petitions onlg on the procedural flau, the right conferred on the Reuenue uLould remain reserued to proceed furtLer if they so uant from the stage of tle order of the Supreme CourT in the case of Ashish Agant-tal, supra.\" 7. In view of the sarne, we are inclined to allow the present writ petition also on similar terms. Accordingly, the I t present Writ Petition stands allowed on thc objection of the 4 to 'r. -n\" Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre' lncome Tax Deoartment, fVinistw'bi F'nanie' Room No ' 4o1 ' 2nd Floor' E-Ramp' ;;;;;;;in;hru siadium' Delhi 110-093, . -, 2. The lncome ra, otrilllw ^:'i t' e i zz' 1st Floor' Subhash Road Siddipet 502103. 6;; ct to Sri A.V.Raghu Ram' Advocate tol!91. .^ ffi # iI iri L.v.F'riao (5c ron INCoME rAX) [oPUCl Two CD CoPies 3. 4. SA KKS PSK,J& MTR,J W,P.No.6685 of 2O24 petitioner that the proceedings have not been drawn in accordance with the amcnded provision but under the un-amended provision which is otherwise not sustainable 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, miscellancous petitions pending, if any' shall stand closed. SD/- V. HARI PRAS ASSISTANT REGIST //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER HIGH COURT DATED:1 410312024 ORDER WP.No.6685 of 2024 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. oR 1HE S 14I * D B iurv 2324 A -sp ,,CO e c^ * .) ATC bq?a Ga- I I I I I % "