Mr. Srinivas Bhusa, S/o Mr. Bhusa Pochaiah, aged 51 V. The Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(1), Hyderabad and The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana

WP/33477/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Mr. Srinivas Bhusa, who challenged the notices and orders issued by the Income Tax Officer under Sections 148 and 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2015-16. The petitioner argued that the actions taken were arbitrary, illegal, and violated the principles of natural justice, as well as specific articles of the Constitution of India and Section 148A of the Income Tax Act. The High Court noted that an identical writ petition had been previously allowed, leading to the decision to allow Mr. Bhusa's petition on similar grounds, emphasizing the procedural flaws in not adhering to the amended provisions of the Act which came into effect on April 1, 2021.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 810610 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 12-12-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Ashish Agarwal case
• 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 Year 2015-16; Income Tax; Legal Violation; Natural Justice; Procedural Flaw; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 148; 14; 148A(d); 148A; 265; 226; 19(1)(g)

Judgement Text

"Between: HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH 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: 33477 OF 2023 AND [ 3s7e ] years, Occ. District - 501 ...PETIT]ONER Mr. Srinivas Bhusa, S/o Mr. Bhusa Pochaiah, aged 5'1 Agriculturist, H.No. 5-63i 1 , Anjapur, Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy 512, Telangana. 1. The lncome Tax Officer - Ward 9(1), Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500 004, Telangana. 2. The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, Hyderabad, Room No..922,91h Flo_or, B Block, lT Towers, 10-2- 3, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad - 500 004, Telangaha. ...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. a.the order passed by the 1st Respondent, u/s 1,18A(d) of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, dat€d O4.O4.2O22, bearing DIN and Notice No.. ITBA/AST/F/148N2022-23110425O1416(1), for the Assessrnent Year 2015 - 16. and b.the notice issued by the 1st Respondent, u/s148 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, dated 06.04.2022, bearing DIN aM Notice No.. TTBtuAST/S/1 48_112022- 2311042594192(1), tor the Assessrnent Year 2015 - 16. as arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, void-ab-initio, violative of the principles of natural justice, apart from being violative of Articles 14, 19(1Xg) and 265 of the Constitution of lndia and Sec '148A of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 , and to consequently set aside the sarne in the interests of justice. IA NOi1 oF 2023 Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to stay all further proceedings, including any recovery, pursuant to the notice issued by the 'lst Respondent, uts 14g of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 06.04.2022, bearing DtN and Notice No.. ,TBA/AST/S/.4B_1t2022_23t1042594192(1), tor the Assessment year 2o1s - 16, pending disposar of the above writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner: SRI A.V.A.SIVA KARTIKEYA counset for the Respondenrs: SRt J.v.piAbAb','ii. sc FoR tNcoME TAx The Court made the following: ORDER I : I I t :, THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSTTY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.33477 OF 2o23 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 arr identical Writ Petition i.e., W.P.No.30153 of 2023 has already been allowed and disposed of uide order, dated 3O.10.2023. 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.30 153 of 2023 decided on 3O.1O.2O23 on similar terms. 3. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any in this .lvrit Petlign, s-hall stand closed. No order as to costs. SD/. K.SREERAMA MURTHY ASSISTANT R ISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION FFICER To PSK GJP 1. The lncome Tax Officer - Ward 9(1), Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500 0O4, Telangana. 2. The Princioal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana', Hyderabad, Room No.. 922,grh Hoor, B Block, IT Towers, 10-2- 3, A.C-. Guards, Hyderabad - 5O0 004, Telangana. 3. one cc to sRl A.v.A.slvA KARTIKEYA, Advocate toPUCl 4. One CC to SRI J.V.PRASAD, Sr. SC FOR INCOME TAXIOPUCI 5. Two CD Copies (Along with the'Copy of Court Order dt:30/1O12O23 in W.P.No. 30153 of 2023) HIGH COURT DATED:1211212023 ORDER WP.No.33477 ot 2023 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 1 $E SIA IC: 3 10 JAl l 2024 P z * oESPATCHeQ * ( @G1it'l C' gs- THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SA.}I KOSI{Y AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY W.P. No.3O153 of 2o23 ORDER: 4rer Ao n'ble Si Justice P.SAIfi KOSHY) ' 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. I 2. The instant petition has been hled challenging the Assessment Order passed by respondent No. I under section i48A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as \"the Act\") dated 25.04.2022 for the Assessment Year 2OLa-19. 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 SecLion 148 of the Act were required to issue notice under Section 148A and provide arr opportunit5r of hearing to the assessee. As per the amended provision of [aw, the proceedings to be drawn are also in d, faceless manner. Whereas, it has been contended by the petitioner that in the instant case, reopening has been initiated by the Juridictional Assessing Offrcer. In respect of the said objection that the petitioner had raised, he relied upon the recent batch of writ .,] -7 petitions decided by this very Bench on 14.O9 .2023 vide W.P.No.259O3 of 2022 and batch to the limited extent. 4. I-earned 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 2 Department W.P.No.259O3 IS concerned, this of 2022 and batch Bench, while disposing of had taken note of the same in paragraph Nos.37 & 38 which is reproduced herein under: \"37. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner rs 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 taised and contended in an appropriate proceedings. \" 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the case ofAshish Agarwal, supra, as a one-time measure exercising the powers under Article L42 of tLie 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 of Ashish 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 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 unamended provision which is otherwise not sustainable. .- - ': :.:. :,;:; 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 any, shall stand closed. P.SAM KOSITY, J LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J Dated: 30.10.2023 aqs s "