Mr. Pradeep Kumar Pattewar V. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, National e-Assessment Center, New Delhi and The Income Tax Officer, Ward '1', Nizamabad Income Tax Office and The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, Hyderabad

WP/16997/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Mr. Pradeep Kumar Pattewar, the petitioner, challenging the legality of the reassessment notice and subsequent orders issued by the Income Tax Department for the Assessment Year 2016-17. The petitioner argued that the reassessment process was not in accordance with the modified procedures set out by the Finance Act, 2021. The respondents included various officials from the Income Tax Department. The court referenced a previous common order in W.P.No.25903 of 2022, which had addressed similar procedural issues under the Finance Act, 2021. The court's decision to allow the writ petition was based on the procedural flaws in the issuance of the notices and the subsequent orders.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 688177 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 03-07-2024
• 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: J SUNITHA
• Assessee Lawyers: A V A KARTIKEYA
• Keywords: Finance Act 2021; Income Tax; Natural Justice; Procedural Flaw; Reassessment; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 144B; 148A; 265; 226

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT FOR THE STA'TE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 16997 OF 2024 Betwee n: AND 1 lVlr. Pradeep Kumar Pattewar, S/o. Mr. Pattewar Balkishan, aged 43 years, Occ.. Business, No. 2-7811, Maidapally, fVlyakloor, lvlamidapally, Adilabad - 503 001, Telangana. ...PETITIONER Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department, National e-Assessment Center, New Delhi, Room No. 4O1 ,2\"' Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, New Delhi - 110 003. 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward '1 , Nizamabad Income Tax Office, 6-2-156/3, Subshash Nagar Nizamabad 3. The Principal Chief Commissioner of lnconre Tax, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, Hyderabad Room No.. 922,91h Floor, 'B' Block, LT.Towers, 1O-2- 3, 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 Nlandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, declaring that the order passed by the 1't Respondent, uls 147 rlw Sec. 144 r/w Sec. 1448 of the Income Tax Act, '1 961, dated 2210312024, bearing DIN and Notice No.. ITBA/AST/S/14712023-2411063177899(1), for the Assessment Year 2016 - 17. as arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, void-ab-initio, violative of the principles of natural justice, apart from being violative of Articles 1a, 19(1)(g) and 265 of the Constitution of India and Sec 148A of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 , and to consequently set aside the same in the interests of justice. | 3411 ) PRESENT lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section '1 51 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 1st Respondent, uls 147 r/w Sec. 144 (lw Sec. '144B of the lncome Tax Act, 196 1 , dated 2210312024, bearing DIN and Notice No.. ITBA/AST/S/14712023-241106317789S(1), for the Assessment Year 2016 - 17. pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A. V. A. SIVA KARTIKEYA Counsel for the Respondents: MS. J. SUNITHA, JUNIOR SC FOR INCOME TAX The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.16997 OF 2024 ORDER: (per Llon'ble .Iustice Sujog Paul) Hcard Sri A.V.A.Siva Kartikeya, learned counsel for the petitioner arrd Ms.J.Sunitha, learned Junior Standing Counsel for income Ta-x Department, for the respondents. 2. The ground taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner(s) is that in furtherance of Finance Act, 2021, re- assessment process stood modified but the respondents have not taken care of it and therefore notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 196 1 cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. Since notice is bad in law, the consequential orders are also bad in law 3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the parties agreed that curtains on this issue are finally drawn by this Court in a batch of writ petitions, W.P.No.25903 of 2022 and other connected matters, decided by common order dated 14.09. 2023 . Tlrc parties agreed that this matter may be disposed of in terms of the Common Order dated 14.O9 .2023 . 2 4. This Court in the said order dated 14.09.2023 in W.P.No.259O3 of 2022, held as under: \"35. In view of the aforesaid discussions, it is by noII' very clear that the procedure to be followed by the respondent- Department upon treating the notices issued for reassessment being under Section 148A, the subsequent proceedings was mandatorily required to be undertaken under the substituted provisions as laid down under the FiDance Act, 2021. ln the absence of which, we are constrained to hold that the procedure adopted by the respondent-Department is in cootravention to the statute i,e. the Finance Act, 2O21, at the lirst instance- Secondly, it is also in direct coatravention to the directives issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case ofAshish Agarwal, supra. 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned notices issued and the proeeedings drawn by the respondent-Depaltment is neither tenable, nor sustainable. The notices so issued and the procedure adopted being per se illegal, deserves to be and are accordiu8ly set aside/quashed. As a consequence' all the impugned orders getting quashed, the consequential otders passed by the respondent Departmeat pursuant to the uotices issued under Section 147 and 148 would also get quashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reason we ate quashing the consequential order is on the principles that when the initiation of the proceedings itself was procedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also gets nullilied automatically. 37. The preliminary objectiou taised by the petitioner is sustained and all these u/rit 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 Hon'ble supreme court had, in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one-time measure exercising the poqrers 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 confetred on the Revenue would remain reserved to proceed further if they so want from the 3 stage of the or( a.atwat, sqp1a. ler ofthe Supreme court in the case ofAshish 39- No order as to costs.,, 5. In view of the r cause notice and \"otot\"\"t\"'\" arrived' the impugned show petition are set .\"r0\".'\"to'\"ntial orders passed in this writ to take respective \",, tto\"t'' is reserved to both the parties Iaw as per paragrapn ,\"0 \"\"0 to proceed in accordance with w.p.No.259o 3 of 2022. '38 of the order dated 14'09'2023 in 6. The writ petition is allowed. No costs. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. To SD/. C. PRAVEEN K AR ASSISTANT GI RAR SECTION OFFICER 1 2 Assessment Unit. lncome Tf; D_epartmenf . Nalional e-Assessment Center. N:W B:lil ii?n,;No 401, 2\". rr6oi, r_ri,,i,ri' j\",,iii,r.r,r Nehru Sradium The lncome Tax Officer. Ward 1, Nizamabad lncome Tax Office, 6_2_156i3, Subshash Naqar Nizamabad The Principal chief commissioner of rncome Tax, Andhra pradesh and Telang.ana, Hyderabad Room No 92i, gtr.lFnii,iri\"'E'tocr, t.T.Towers, 10-2- 3. AC Guards, Hyderabad - 500 004, ielarioani ' \" -' Une CC to Sri A. V. A Siva Kartikeya. Adv\"ocate IOPUCI 9.\" 99 t^o I ,4s. J Sunirha, Junior Sb ir t,,com\".-t'Jx t6iUCl Two CD Copies 3 4 5 6 TJ GJP F /iTRUE COPY' HIGH COURT DATED:03 tO712024 ORDER WP.No.16997 of 2024 ALLOWING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \"? '11 0[T zul F5 s a o Y. c 1416 E H S 1 8. u t 6 a .L o 0{-t I I i i Vv "