Mr. Likhita Sanagana, Advocate V. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Center, New Delhi and The Income Tax Officer - Ward 6(1), Hyderabad and The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 1, Hyderabad

WP/34905/2023

AI Insights

The case involves a writ petition filed by Ms. Likhita Sanagana challenging the assessment order issued by the Income Tax Department for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The petitioner argued that the order was arbitrary, void, and violated principles of natural justice and constitutional rights. The main contention was that the assessment proceedings were not conducted in a faceless manner as required by the amended provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, but were instead initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The court found that the procedures followed were not in compliance with the amended law, leading to the quashing of the assessment order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 799666 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 28-12-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: W.P.No.30153 of 2023, W.P.No.25903 of 2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: J V PRASAD
• Assessee Lawyers: A V A KARTIKEYA
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Faceless assessment; Income Tax; Natural Justice; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 148A; 265; 226; 144F

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION NO: 34905 OF 2023 [ 337e ] Occ ; Rajeev Between: IVlr. Likhita Sanagana, D/o Venkata Ramana Sangana, Aged 29 years, Advocate, H.No.8-3-168iR/231241251106, Bhavana Enclave, Road No.2, Nagar, Hyderabad - 500 045, Telangana. .....PETITIONER AND '1. Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Center, New Delhi, Room No. 401, 2\"o Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, New Delhi - 'l 10 003. 2. The lncome Tax Officer - Ward 6(1), Hyderabad, I T Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500 004, Telangana. 3. The Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax - 1 , Hyderabad, Room No. 71 1 , 7th Floor, l.T.Towers, AC Guards, Hyderabad - 500 004, Telangana. .....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 issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, declaring order passed by me 1s! Respondent, uts 147 r/w Sec. 144 r/w Sec. 144F ot the lncome Tax Act, '1961, dated OSl12l2O23, bearing DIN and Notice No. ITBA/AST/S/147t2O23-2411058473018(1 ), for the Assessment Year 2O'18 - 1 9, as arbitrary, legal, bad in law, void-ab-initio, violative of the principles of natural justice apart from being violative of Articles 1 a, 1 9(1 Xg) and 265 of the Constitution of lndia and Sec. 148A of the lncome Tax Act' 1961, and consequently set aside the same of justice. |.A.NO:1 OF 2023 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 by the 1\"t Respondent, uls 147 r/w Sec. 144 rlw Sec. 144B of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 ,datedO5l12l2023, bearing DIN and Notice No. ITBA/AST/S/14712023- 2411058473018(1), for the Assessment Year 2018 - 19, pending disposat of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI A.V.A.SIVA KARTIKEYA Counsel for the Respondents : SRt J.V.PRASAD (Sr. SC FOR INCOME TAX) The Court made the following ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSITY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JT'STICE N.TUI(ARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.349OS OF 2023 ORDER: (per Hon'ble Si Justice P.SAM KOSHY) When the matter is taken up for hearing today, it has been informed by the parties that an identical Writ Petition i.e., W.P.No.3O 153 of 2023 has already been allowed arld disposed of uide order, dated 3O.10.2O23. 2. In view of the fact that the identical matter has already been allowed by this Court, we are inclined to allow this Writ Petition in terms of the order passed in W.P.No.30153 of 2023 decided on . 30.10.2023 on similar terms. 3. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// SD/- A.PRATHIMA I ASSrsrANr(lEGrvfRAR I a/ SECTION OFFICER To SA 1 2 3 . The Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Center, New Delhi, Room No.. 401 , 2nd Floor, E-Ramp, .liwinirfar Nehru Stadium, New Delhi - 110 003. . iheinCom. Tax Officer - Ward 6(1), Hyderabad, I T Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500 004, Telangana. . . iri\" Friniipii Cbmmissioner of lncome Tai - 1, Hyderabad, Room No' 711, 7th Floor, i.T.Towers, AC Guards, Hyderabad - q00 004, Telangana' . One CC io Sri A.V.A.Siva Kartikeya, Advocate IOPUCI . One CC to Sri J.V.Prasad (Sr. SC FOR INCOME TAX) [OPUC] . Two CD Copies (Alono with a copv of the order, dated 30'10-2023, passed by this bourt-in wP.No.3d153 ot 2023 to this order) 4 6 GJ-k .P I HIGH COURT DATED:2811212023 ORDER WP.No.34905 of 2023 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS r > 3 23 JAN 2024 * t0 TA S E H 1 ?te J q z a FSF/,icH t D z .i< THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA AIISHETTY W.P. No.3O153 of 2O23 ORI)ER: per Ao n'ble Si Justice P.SAM KosHa) Heard Mr. A.V.A. Siva Kartikeya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. B. Sapna Reddy, learned Junior Standing Counsel for Income Tax appearing for the respondents. Perused the entire record. 2. The instant petition has been filed challenging the Assessment Order passed by respondent No. I under section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 196 1 (hereinafter referred to as \"the Act\") dated 25.04.2022 for the Assessment Year 2018-19. 3. One of the contentions that the petitioner has raised in the present i,.rit petition is that under the amended provisions of the Act which came into effect ftorn 07 .O4.2O2 1, 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 are also in a faceless manner. Whereas, it has been contended by the petitioner that in the instant case, reopening has been initiated by the Juridictional Assessing Officer. In respect of the said objection that the petitioner had raiSed, he relied upon the recent batch of writ .. :..1:r.f- 2 petitions decided by this very Bench on 14 .O9.2023 vide W.P.No.259O3 of 2022 and batch to the limited extent. 4. Learned counsel for the Department would not dispute of having decided the said objection in the aforesaid batch matters. However, learned counsel submits that apart from the aforesaid 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 Department is concerned, this Bench, while disposing of W.P.No.259O3 of 2022 and batch had taken note of the same in paragraph Nos.37 & 38 which is reproduced herein under: \"37. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner is sustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed on this very jurisdictional issue. Since the impugned notices and orders are getting quashed on the point ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further and decide the other issues raised by the petitioner which stands reserved to be raised and contended in an appropriate proceedings.\" 38. Since the Hontrle 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 Revenue to proceed under the substituted provisions, and this Court allowing the petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right conferred on the Revenue would remain reserved to proceed further if they so want from the stage of the order of the Supreme Court in the case ofAshish Agarwal, supra. 6. In view of the same, we are inclined to allow the present writ petition also on similar terms. Accordingly, the present Writ Petidon stands allowed on the objection of the petitioner that the proceedings have not been drawn in accordance with the amended provision but under the unamended provision which is otherwise not sustainable. - qlr ,,. 3 , I As has been held by this Bench in the aforesaid batch matters, the right of the respondents would stand reserved as is envisaged in paragraph Nos.37 & 38 of the said batch. No order as to costs. 7 . Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if ahy, shall stand closed. P.SAM KOSHY, J LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J Dated: 30.10.2O23 aqs I , "