Mr. Syed Kareem V. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Nizamabad and The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Hyderabad and Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, National e-Assessment Centre, New Delhi

WP/2180/2024

AI Insights

The case involves a Writ Petition filed by Mr. Syed Kareem against the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Nizamabad, and other respondents, challenging the notices and orders issued for the Assessment Year 2018-19 under Sections 148 and 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that the actions taken were arbitrary, illegal, and violated the principles of natural justice, as well as Articles 14, 19, and 265 of the Constitution of India. The court examined whether the notices and orders were issued in compliance with the amended provisions of the Income Tax Act, which came into effect on April 1, 2021, mandating faceless proceedings and an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 796183 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Ashish Aganval case
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SUNDARI R PISUPATI
• Assessee Lawyers: A V A KARTIKEYA
• Keywords: Assessment year 2018-19; Faceless Proceedings; Income Tax; Natural Justice; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 148; 148A; 265

Judgement Text

"rxe rflo [ 337e ] ti IN THE COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA WEDN THE tBetween: 23t1042668500(1), law, rcid-ab-initio' violative of Articles of the lncorne Ta interests of justice. ll. * \", lli'lo, \"?f f,lt?,\",, \" \" r ESD Y, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY ttnb ruousnND AND rwENTy FouR f;[,*\"*T::il,\". P sAM KosHY I h t, II i AND URABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI PETITION NA:2180 OF 2024 Assessment Year 2O18 19, arbitrary, illegal, bad in ve of lhe principles of natural justice apart from being 1Xg) and 265 of the Constitution of lndia & Sec. 148A 1961, and consequently set aside the same in the I l I I I i i S ,AND Mr. RiYaz 9-17-837, Mr. Syed Kareem, Aged 43 years, Occ: Business, H.No. , Nizamabad - 503 001, Telangana. ...PETITIONER 1 . The Assistant ssioner of lncome Tax, Circle 1 , Nizamabad , lncome Tax Office' , Subash Nagar, Nizamabad - 503 002, Telangana. 2. The PrinciPal rof lncomeTax-2, Hyderabad, l.T. Towers, 10-2- 500 004, Telangana. 3, AC Guards' 3. Assessrnent me Tax Department, National e-Assessment Centre New Delhi' No. 4O1,2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, New Delhi - 11 0d3. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under 226 ol lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances sta the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or pleased to issue a Direction, declaring the lncome Tax order passed by the 1st Respondent, u/s 14BA(d) of 1, dated OBlO4l2O22, bearing DIN and Notice No. ITBA/AST/F/1 311042667795(1), for the Assessment Year 2O18 - 19: & b. the notice is the 1 st Respondent, u/s 'l 4B of the lncome Tax Act, bearing DIN and Notice No. ITBA/AST/S/148 112022- I 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated rt of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to ncluding any recovery, pursuant to the notice issued s 148 of the lncome Tax Act, .1961, dated O8tO4t2O22 o. ITBAiAST/S/ 1 48_1 12022-2311 042668500(1 ), for the 9, pending disposal of the above Writ petition : SRI A.V.A. SIVA KARTIKEYA by the 1st R t bearing DIN Assessment Counsel for espondelltllr/ and Notltelru Year zof8 lr th\" P\"titil#. I I L I lCounsel for the Res nts: M/s. SUNDARI R. PtSUpATt (Sr SC for INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT) The Court made the ing: ORDER m m 1 I I 2024 Petition under in the affidavit filed i p stay all further proc irls THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.218O OF 2024 ORDER:(per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY) The instant Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the following relief: \"to issue a Writ of Mandamus or anA otLter appropriate Wit Ord.er or Direction declaing a the order passed bA the lst Respondent u/s 148Ad of tlLe Income Tax Act 1961 dated O8/O4/2O22 beaing DIN and Notbe IVo ITBA/AST/F/148A/20222s/1042ffi77951 fo, the Assessment Year 2O18 19 and b the rntice bsued bg the 1st Respondent u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961 dated 08/ 04/ 2022 beaing DIN and. Notice .lYo ITBA/ AST/ S/ 1481/ 202223/ 10426685001 fo, the Assessment Year 2018 19 arbitrary illegal bad in laut uoidabinitio uiolatiue of thc pinciples of natural justice apart fiom being uiolatiue of Arlicles 14 191X9 ond 265 of the Constitution of Indio and Sec 148A of the Income Tax Act 1961 and conseqtentlg set a-side the same in thE interests of 1ustice\". 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 carne into effect from Ol.O4.2O2l, the respondents, while proceeding under Section 148 of the Act, were r€quired to issue notice under Section 148,{ and provide an opportunity of hearing to the \"i!I- ,{,,.\" .. &.1 vry 2 PSI(,J & MTR,J W.P.No-278O of 2O24 assessee. As per the amended provision of law, the proceedings to be drawn are also in a faceless marner. 3. Whereas, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, in the instant case, reopening has been initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Offrcer. In support of h is 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 disposing of said batch of writ petitions, had taken note of t 3 PSK,J & NTR,J w.P.ltb.278O of 2024 the same at paragraph Nos.37 & 38 which are reproduced herein under: '37. The preliminary objection raised by tLrc petitioner is sustoined and all tlese utit petitions stands allowed on this uery jurisdictional issue. Since the impugned notices ond orders are getting quashed on th.e pcint of juisdiction, u-)e are not inclined to proceed furtler and decide tLte other issues raised bg the petitioner uhich stands reserued to be raised and conterLded in an approp iate proceeding s. \" \"38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court hod, in ttte case of Ashish Aganaal, supro, as a one-time measure exercising tle pouers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, permitted the Reuenue to proceed under tle substifiited proui\"sion s, and this Court allouing the petitions onlg on tLrc procedural flaw, tlrc right confetred on the Reuenue uould remain reserued to proceed further if theg so utant from the stage of the order of the Supreme Court in the use of Ashish Aganual, 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 un-amended provision which is otherwise not sustainable. 7 . As has been held by this Bench in the aJoresaid batch I matters, the rights of the parties would stand reserved as is 4 PSI(,J d6 N?R,J W.P.No.2780 of 2O24 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. SD/- N, CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO ASstsurur BEGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 10-2- To,1. The Assistant issioner of lncome Tax, Circle 1, Nizama bad, lncome Tax Office, 6-2-t5613. Subas lc6hfhissioner h Nagar, Nizamabad - 503 002, T 2, Hyderabad, I'T. Towers, elangana 2. The Principa of lncome Tax - 3, AC Guards, tlydbrabad - 500 004, Telangana. 3. Assessment Urtl ,lhcome Tax DePartment, Natio nal e-Assessment Centre, New Delhi, Rootn No. 401 , 2nd Floor, E-RamP, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, ffi d003. rA. r.A l New Delhi - 11 4. One CC to SR 5. One CC to SRI UNDARI R. PISUPATI (S SIVA KARTIKEYA, Advocate [O r SC for INC PUC] OME TAX DEPARMTNE PUC] 6. Two CD CoPie BN GJP at 2 <- ./ v HIGH COURi[ DATED:31/0 4 rl ii, il ![ rli 't ORDER WP.No.2180 24 iALLOWING T WRIT PETITION WITHOUT CO3 1HE :i r,r 3 lij LJ t a J o o 11flAB a 5 2024 {' ,r-i-- t * * J.:i'i|f C j, @q* t "