Mr. Jampana Pullamraju, Partner V. Income Tax Officer, Ward 8(1), Hyderabad and Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 2, Hyderabad and Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, National e-Assessment Centre, New Delhi

WP/2951/2024

AI Insights

The case involves a writ petition filed by Utsav Ventures, represented by its partner Mr. Jampana Pullamraju, against the Income Tax Officer, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, and the Assessment Unit of the Income Tax Department. The petitioner challenged the notices and orders issued for the Assessment Year 2019-20 under Sections 148 and 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, claiming they were arbitrary, illegal, and violative of natural justice and constitutional rights. The court's decision was influenced by the need to adhere to the amended provisions of the Act which mandate a faceless procedure and an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 818008 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 06-02-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Ashish Agarwal
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SUNDARI R PISUPATI
• Assessee Lawyers: A V A KARTIKEYA
• Keywords: Faceless Proceedings; Income Tax; Jurisdictional issue; Natural Justice; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 148; 148A(d); 148A; 226

Judgement Text

"[ 337e ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTH 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:2951 OF 2024 Betweer I Uts lS vtines, H.No.476, Habib Mansion, 1o0 FT Road, Madhapur' Hyderabad - 500 082, Telangana Represented by its Partner, Mr. Jampana Pullamraju, S/o. Mr. J. Suryanarayana Raju. I .....PETITIONER I AND I 1 . T e lncome Tax Officer, Ward 8( 1), Hyderabad, Signature Towers, Sy.No.6(P) of Kondapur, Sy.No.37(P) of Kothaguda, Opposite Botanica-l ^ G-ardens, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad - 500 084, Telangana 2. T e Principal Commissioner Of lncome Tax 2, Hyderabad,, Signature Towers, Sr.No.6(Pi of Kondapur, Sy. No. 37(P) of Kothaguda, Opposite Botanical Glrdens, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad - 500 084, Telangana. l 3. Adsessment Unit, lncome Tax Department,, National eAssessment Centre, N$w Delhi, Room No. 4O1,2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Ndw Delhi - 110 003. .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Arltcle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of lr,landamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, declaring. a. the order passed by the 1't Respondent, u/s 148A(d) of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, dated 30-03-2023, bearing DIN and Notice No.. ITBtuAST/F/148 At2O22-23t105164677311), for the Assessment Year 2019 - 20, and b. the notice issued by the 'l'r Respondent, u/s 148 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, d ted 31-03-2023, bearing DIN and Notice No. fiBNASIlsl148 112022- 23t1051 22098(1), for the Assessment Year 2019 - 20, arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, voi -ab-initio, violative of the principles of natural justice apart from being violative of Articles 14, 19(t)(g) and 265 of the Constitution of lndia and Sec 1484 of e lncome Tax Act, 1961, and consequently set aside the same in the interests of justice i1 oF 2024 tition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the iavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to rther proceedings, including any recovery, pursuant to the notice issued f the lncome Tax Act, 1961, dated 31.03.2023, bearing DIN and Notice stay all f No.. lT TlSl148_112022-2311051722098( 1 ), for the Assessment Year 201g - 20, pe ding disposal of the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI A.V.A.SIVA KARTIKEYA Counse for the Respondents : M/s. SUNDARI R.PISUPATI (SR SC FOR INCOM TN( DEPT) The Co made the following ORDER P u/s 148 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSITY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI WSTICE N.TT'XARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.2951 OF 2o24 QBpEB:@er Hon'ble Si Justice P.SAM KOS.HY) The instant Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief; \"...to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order, or Direction declaring a the order passed by the t$ Respondent under Section 148A(d) of the [ncome Tax Act, 1961, dated 30.03.2023 bearing DIN and Notice No.ITBA/AST/ F I r48A/2022-231 rOSt646773l for the Assessment Year 2Ol9-2O and the notice issued by the lst Respondent under Section 148 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, dated 31.03.2023 bearing DIN and Notice No.ITBA/AST/Sll48ll2O2223 llO5l722O981 for the Assessment Year 2Ol9-2O arbitrary, illegal, bad in law void ob initio, violative of the principles of natural justice, apart from being violative of Articles 14, 19 I (g) and 265 of the Constitution of India and Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 196 I and consequently set aside the same in the interests ofjustice and to pass...\" 2. 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 OL.O4 .2021 , the respondents, while proceeding under Section 148 of the Act, were required to issue notice under 2 PSK,J & NTR,J W.P.No.2957 of 2024 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. 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 aforesaid batch of Writ Petitions. However, he further contended that apart from the aforesaid objection, there have been other various objections also which the petitioner has raised in the writ petrtlon. 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 3 1 PSr,J& ffr&J W.P.No.295l o:f 2024 the same at paragraph Nos.37 & 38 which are reproduced herein under: \"37. Tle preliminary objection raised bg tte petttioner is sustained and all these utit petitions stands alloued on this uery jurisdictional issue. 'Since the impugned notices and orders are getling quashed on the point of juri.sdiction, u)e are not inclined to proceed further and decide the otler fssues raised bg the petitioner which stands reserued to be raised and contended in on appropiate proce e ding s. \" \"38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in th.e case of Asfush Aganaal, supra, as a one-time mea.sltre exercising the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of lndia, permitted tLe Reuenue to proceed under th.e substituted prouisions, and this Court allowing the petitions only on the procedural flaw, tle ight conferred on the Reuenue u'tould remain reserued to proceed Jurther if tLey so uant from the stage of the order of th.e Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarutal, suPra.' 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-amended provision which is otherwise not sustainable. t t 4 PSr(,J & igrR,J W.P.No.2957 of 2024 7. As has been held by this Bench in the aforesaid batch matters, the right 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. 8. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/.P.CH.NAGABHU SHAM BA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR a. >.,/ q SECTION OFFICER To 1. Tt 4. OAe CC to 5. OAe CC to o. Tvrvo CD C s/ e lncome Tax Officer, Ward 8(1), Hyderabad, Signature Towers, Gardens, Serilingam No.6(P) of Konda pally pur, Sy. Mandal, Ranga R No.37(P) of Kothagu eddy District, Hyderabad - 500 da, Opposite Botanical 084, Telangana SA 2. The.Prin-cipal Commissione-r Of lnmme Tax 2, Hydeabad, Signature Towers, !9 No. 6(P) of Kondap.ur, Sy. No q7(p) of Kothdguoa. oppojre BoL\"ili -' 9-alOgn:, Seritingampaily Mandat, Rahla Reddy bistrict, HyOeraOaO - SOO 084, Telangana. 3. The Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department, National e_Assessment Centre, New Delhi, Room No. 401, 2ro Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stbdium, New Delhi - 1'10 003. Sri A.V.A.Siva Kartikeya, Advocate [OpUC] M/s. Sundari R Pisupati (Sr SC for lncome Tax Dept) tOpUCl opies v / I H!GH COURT DAT D:0610212024 ORD R WP.N .2951 ot 2024 ALL lNG THE W.P WITH UT COSTS. 4, _i' ( J THE SI4 15 1 3 fip.g 2C24 ) ' 2 C .,,Y SF.i i-r: 'li'; :?> "