Mr. Srinivasa Rao Rayudu V. The Income Tax Officer - Ward 14(1), Hyderabad and The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -'1, Hyderabad and Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, National e-Assessment Center, New Delhi

WP/3111/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Mr. Srinivasa Rao Rayudu, the petitioner, challenging the notices and orders issued by the Income Tax Department under Sections 148 and 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The petitioner argued that these were issued arbitrarily and violated principles of natural justice, as well as specific articles of the Constitution of India and the Income Tax Act itself. The court's decision was influenced by a precedent set in a previous batch of writ petitions, where it was determined that the notices were issued without following the correct procedural amendments, thus affecting their validity.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 795914 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 08-02-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Ashish Aganual
• 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 SIVA KARTIKEYA
• Keywords: Assessment year 2018-19; Income Tax; Natural Justice; Void ab initio; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 148; 148A(b); 148A2

Judgement Text

"+ [ 337e ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH 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: 3111 OF 2024 Between: lvlr. Srinivasa Rao Rayudu, S/o. Mr. Rayudu Sambaiah, aged about 62 years, Occ- Business, H.No.:Plot No. 26, Road No.3, Sri Venkateswara Hills, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034, Telangana. ...PETITIONER AND 1 The lncome Tax Officer - Ward 14(1), Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, Arlasab Tank, Hyderabad - 500 004, Hyderabad The Principal Commissioner Of lncome Tax -'l , Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, N,4asab Tank, Hyderabad - 500 004, Hyderabad 3- Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department,, National e-Assessment Center, New Delhi, Room No.. 4O1,2\"\" Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, New Delhi - 1 10 003 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 1't Respondent, u/s 148A(b) of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, dated 22.O3.2022, bearing DIN and Notrce No-. ITBA/AST/F/148A12022-2311042811721(1), for the Assessment Year 2018 - 19, and b. the notice issued by the 1't Respondent, u/s 148 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, dated 22O4.2O22, bearing DIN and Notice No.. ITBA/AST/S/148 112022- 2311042814163(1), for the Assessment Year 2018 - 19, as arbitrary, illegal. bad in law, void- ab- initio, violative of the principles of natural justice apart from being violative of Articles 14. 19(1)(g) and 265 of the Constitution of lndia and Sec. 148A 2 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961' and consequently set aside the same in the interests of justice. IANO:1 oF 2024 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 a further pr.oceedings, incruding any recovery, pursuant to the notice issued uis 'l48 of the lncome Tax Act' 1961' dated 22 O4-2O22' bearing DIN and Notice No' ITBA/AST/S/14 B-1t2022-23t1042814163(1)' for the Assessment Year 2018 - 19' pending disposal of the above Writ Petition' Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A V A SIVA KARTIKEYA counser for the Responaentrlt v PRASAD (sc FoR lNcoME TAx) The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI WSTICE P'SAM KOSHY ORDER: (per Hon'ble Si Jttstice P'SAM KOSRIII) The instalt Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articl e 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the following relief: the Act which came into effect from \". . .to issue a Wfu of Mandamus or . ang otLLer appropiate Wnt Order-lr iirection declaing tle order iassed bq the p )\"lponi\"\"t' u/s 148A(b) of the i;;;;; ;;.;;' tsarl-i\"t'a 22 os 2022' beains DtN ond Notice xo' ' iBetasT/F/148A(scNy2o21- 22/ 104 1266503(I)' 7o''ii *t\"\"\"ment Aear 2O18-19; & the nottce i:;l;ued bg ''i\" tn '\"\"pondeit'^u/ s MA of the Income Tax Act' isil' a\"tta-22 04:2'92'?' beaing DIN ond Nottce Uo'' tnatAST/S/ 148-1/2022- 23/ 10428141A5U1' for tl}e assessment gear 2018-19; '\"i' ;\";;;;; 'ii'sit\"i\"i in tatu' uoid-ab'initio' uiotatiue of the pincipt\"' o1 'Iit\"ol iustice apart from being iiotatiue of Artictes'' \"i, tstt)(gl- !;1 291 of ttLe Constitution of lndta a Sic' Uba o7 tle-Income Tax Act' 1961, and cont.,q..inltl-'\"Lt o\"ide the same in the interests of justice; \";;\"p;* such other orders as tlis ';;;:;i; i;;' m as deem' fit and ProPer\"' 2. One of the contentions that the petitioner has raised in the present Writ Petition is that under the amended AND PETITTON No.31 11 0F 2o24 the respondsnls, while proceeding under TTIE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N'TUI{ARAMJI WRIT provisions of or.o4.202r, 2 PSK,J & ItfIR'J W.P.No.3777 of 2O24 Section 148 of the Act, were required to issue notice under Section 148A and provide an opportuniry of hearing to the assessee. As per the amended provision of law, the proceedings to be drawn are also in a faceless marlner. 3. Whereas, Iearned counsel for the petitioner contended that, in the instalt case, reopening has been initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Ofhcer. 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 petition. 5. So far as this contention of the learned counsel for the respondent-Department is concerned, this Bench, while 3 PSK,J & iITR,J W.P.No.3777 of 2O24 disposing of said batch of writ petitions, had taken note of the same at paragraph Nos.37 & 38 which are reproduced herein under: \"37. The preliminary objection raised bg the petitioner ii sustained and all tlrcse urit petitions stands alloued on this uery juisdictionol issue. Since the impugned notices and orders are getting quashed on tLe point of jurisdiction, u)e are not inclined to proceed further and decide the other issues raised bg the petitioner u.thich stands reserued to be raised and contended in an approp iate pro ce eding s. \" \"38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court tnd, in the cose of Ashish Aganual, supra, as a one-time measure exercising the potuers under Article 142 of tte Constitution of India, pennitted the Reuenue to proceed under tle substituted prouisions, and thi's Court atlouing the petitions onlg on the procedural Jlau' the right confered on the Reuenue utould remain reserued to proceed further if theg so ttLant from tle stage of tte order of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agonaal, supra.\" 6. In view of the same, ive 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 accordalce with the amended provision but under the un-amended provision r.l'hich is otherwise not sustainable. I 4 PSK,J & NTR,J W.P.No.3771o.f 2024 7 . As has been held by this Bench in the a_foresaid batch matters, the rights 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. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. P. PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTI N OFFICER To, 1 2 3 The lncome Tax Officer - WqlOl^+(t ), Hyderabad, tT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500 004, itvd'erabad I he Principal Commissioner Of lncom-e Tax 1. Hyderabad. rr Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500 004, HvOtiaOio Asselsment Unit, lncome Tax D_epartment.. Ndtional e-Assessment Center, New Delhi, Room No. 401 , 2nd Ftbor, E-nimp. Jawanarlar f.f \"nru StrJrri,' New Delhi - 1 10 003 One CC to Sri A V A Siva Kartikeya, Advocate tOpUCl 9n. 99 ro Sri J V prasad (SC rorilrcole iAxi-toFUct Two CD Copies 4 6 TJ GJPI : i i I I I HIGH COURT DATED:0810212024 1*e SltI T ( o o ,1 B ltAH ?0?{ (, t ORDER t WP.No.3111 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS. t)EsPAiei-rt :) G)c'Pu *r.- 4 ++ "