Mr. Madan Mohan Rao Arshanapally V. Union of India

WP/1824/2024

AI Insights

The case involves a writ petition filed by Mr. Madan Mohan Rao Arshanapally challenging the legality of an order and notice issued by the Income Tax Officer under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that the order and notice were issued without following the procedural requirements set out in the amended provisions of the Act, which came into effect on 01.04.2021. The court referenced a similar case, W.P.No. 34493 of 2023, which had been allowed on similar grounds, leading to the decision to allow this writ petition as well.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 685100 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 25-01-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: W.P.No. 34493 of 2023, W.P.No. 25903 of 2022 & batch, Ashish Agrawal vs. Revenue
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: GADI KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: SOMA REDDY
• Keywords: Faceless assessment; Income Tax; Jurisdiction; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 148; 148A(d)

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (SPecial Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION NO: '1824OF 2024 [ 337e ] ...PETITIONER Between: AND 1 Mr. Madan Mohan Rao Arshanapally, S/o A. Narayana Rao Aggd about 54 years Plot no.63, Venkatarao Nagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500072. 2 J 4 Union of lndia, tVlinistry of Finance, Rep. by its Secretary, 166-8 North Block' New Delhi - 110 001. lncome Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Hyderabad Signature Towers, Sy. No. 6(P) of Kondapur, Sy. No. 37(P) ol Kothagudq, Opp. Botanical Gardens, Serlinjampally (M), R.R. District, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500084 The Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax-ll, Signature.Towers' 9V . p 9(l) of Kondapur, Kothaguda, Opp. Botanical Gardehs, Serlingampally (M)' R.R. District, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500084 The National Faceless Assessment Centre, lncome Tax Department Ministry of Finance Govt. of lndia, New Delhi. ...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: lssue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly, one, in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the order passed by the Respondent No.2 in passing the Order dated 22.O4.2022 uls. 148A (d) and Notice issued by the Respondent No.2 under Section 148 of the lncome Tax Act, '1961 dated 22.04.2022 as illegal, arbitrary, bad in law, void ab initio, and being violative of the provisions of lncome Tax Act 196'l and Articles 14, 19 and 265 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently. Set aside the Order dated 22.O4.2O22 uls. 1484(d) and Notice issued by the Respondent No.2 under Section 148 of the lncome Tax Act, 196'1 dated 22.04.2022 calling for the return of income of the Petitioner for AY. 201 5-16 and consequent proceedings as lacking in jurisdiction. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P.SOMA SHEKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMARM, Dy. SOLICITOR GEN. OF INDIA The Court made the following: ORDER I THE HON'BL'E SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSITY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI Writ Petition No.1824 OF 2024 ORDER:per ao n'ble Si Justice P.SA I KOSHY) When the matter is taken up for hearing today, it has been informed by the learned counsel for the parties that an identical Writ Petition i.e., W.P.No. 34493 of 2023 has already been allowed and disposed of uide order, dated 27.12.2023. 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.34493 of 2O23 decided on 27.12.2023 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/. P.PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR '- SECTIOMOFFICER To, 1 . The Secretary, Ministry of Finance 166-8 North Block, New Delhi, Union of lndia - 1'10 001. 2. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 2( 1),Hyderabad Signature Towers' Sy' No' 6(P) of Kondapur, Sy. No. 37(P) of Kothaguda' Opp. Botanical Gardens, Serlingampally (M), R.R. District, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500084- 3. The Piincipal bommissioner of lncome Tax-ll, Signature Towers, Sy' No 6(P) of Kondapur, Kothaguda, Opp. Botanical Gardens, Serlingampally (f '), R R' District, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500084 4. The National Faceless Assessment centre, lncome Tax Department Ministry of Finance Govt. of lndia, New Delhi. 5. One CC to SRI P.SOIVA SHEKAR REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC tO SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUIVIAR' DY. SOLICITOR GEN. OF INDIA, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies (Along with the copy of order daled 27.12.2O23, in W.P.No.34493 ot 2023t. BSR , I -.L!t HIGH COURT DATED: 2510112024 ORDER J o o WP.No.1824 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS t ?A .;':iL ir. c q 17 FEB zii:q -,7 % Qv 5 ,f I ( 't I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUI{ARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.34493 OF 2023 ORI)ER:(per Ho n'ble Si Justice P.SAM KOSHY) The instant Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order issued under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 196 1 (for short, \"the Act\") bearing DIN No.ITBA/AST lF I r4BA/2022-23/ro42852t37 (1), dated 26.O4.2022 passed by respondent No.1 for the assessment year 2018-19 and the consequent notice under Section 148 of the Act, dated 26.04.2022, bearing DIN No.ITBA/AST / S/ 148 1 / 2022-23 / 10428ss160 (1). 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.O4.2O2L, the respondents, while proceeding under Section 148 of the Act, were required to issue notice under Section l48A and provide an opportunity of hearing to the 2 -t PSI(,J &, IyrR,J W.P.No.34493 of 2O23 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.259O3 of 2022 & batch, dated 14.Og.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 objection was decided does not dispute that the said 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 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 5 3 PSK,J & NTR,J W.P.No.34493 of 2023 the same at paragraph Nos.37 & 38 which are reproduced herein under: \"37. The preliminary objection raised by the petitroner is sustained and all these utit petitions stands alloued on this uery juisdictional issue. Since the impugned notices and orders ore getttng quashed on the point of juisdiction, u)e are not inclined to proceed further and decide the other issues roised bg the petitioner ulhich stands reserued to be raised and contended in an appropiate proce eding s. \" \"38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the case of Ashish Agaru.n| supro, os a one-time measuie exercising the pou.ters under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, permitted the Reuenue to proceed under the substituted prouisions, . and this Court allotuing the petitions onlg on the procedural flaut, the ight conferred on the Reuenue uould remain reserued to proceed further if theg so want from the stage of the order of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Aganaal, 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-amended provision which is otherwise not sustainable. 7 . As has been held by this Bench in the aforesaid batch matters, the rights of the parties would stand reserved as is ,/ 4 PSI(,J & II\"R,J W.P.No.34493 o.f 2O2S envisaged at paragraph Nos.37 & 3g 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. P.SAM KOSHY, J Date:27.72.2023 TJMR N. TUKARAMJI, J I "