Mr. Venkata Surya Subrahmanya Lakshminarayana Dronamraju V. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, National e-Assessment Center, New Delhi and The Income Tax Officer - Ward 14(1), Hyderabad and The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - '1, Hyderabad and The Central Board of Direct Taxes, Represented by its Chairman

WP/29663/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Mr. Venkata Surya Subrahmanya Lakshminarayana Dronamraju, the petitioner, challenging an assessment order issued by the Income Tax Department for the Assessment Year 2016-17. The petitioner argued that the assessment was conducted under the unamended provisions of the Income Tax Act, which was not sustainable. The respondents included various officials from the Income Tax Department and the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The court's decision was influenced by a precedent set in a similar writ petition, W.P.No.25903 of 2022, where the court had sustained the objection regarding the non-compliance with the amended provisions of the Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 799793 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 19-10-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: W.P.No.11860 of 2023, W.P.No.28860 of 2023, W.P.No.25903 of 2022
• 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 Order; Income Tax; Natural Justice; Violation of Articles; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 147; 148; 144B; 148A; 265; 226

Judgement Text

" [ 3386 ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETry WRIT PETITION NO:29663 OF 2023 Between: AND 1 lvlr. _ Venkata Surya Subrahmanya Lakshmin arayana Dronamraju, S/o. Mr. D.V- Jogeswara Rao, aged 50 years, Occ. Business, H.No.358, Road No. .10, Mithal Nagar, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034, Telangana. ...PETITIONER Asselsrnsnl Unit, lncome Tax Department, National e-Assessment Center, New Delhi, Room No.40'1 , 2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, New Delhi - 1 10 003. The lncome Tax Officer - Ward 14(1), Hyderabad, l.T. Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500 004, Telangana. The Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax - '1, Hyderabad, Room No.71 1, 7th Floor,'A'Block, l.T.Towers, AC Guards, Hyderabad - 500 004, Telangana. The Central Board of Direct Taxes, Represented by its Chairman, Department of Revenue, Mlnrptry of Finance, Government of lndia, Secretariat Buildings, New Delhi - 1 10 001 . 2 J 4 ...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 [Vlandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, declaring the Assessment Order passed by the 1st Respondent, u/s 147 rlw Sec. 1448 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, dated 29.05.2023, bearing DlN.: lTBtuASf lsl14712023-2411053269917(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 14, 19(1Xg) and 265 of the /: Constitution of lndia and Sec .14gA of the lncome Tax Act, 196i , and to consequently set aside the same in the interests of justice lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under section r 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired rn support of the petition, the High court may be preased to stay all further proceedings, incruding any recovery, pursuant to the Assessment order passed by the 1st Respondent, uls 14T r/w sec. 1448 of the lncome Tax Act, '1 961, dated 29.05 2023, bearing DlN.: tTBA/AST/S/147t2023_ 241105326991t (1), for the Assessment year 2Oi6 _ 1Z, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRt A.V.A.SIVA KARTIKEYA Counsel for the Respondents: SRI J.V.PRASAD, Sr. SC FOR INCOME TAX The Court made the foltowing: ORDER i I I i i 1 I I i I 'I'tlE IIOir\"'Ill.[. SI{I .IUSI'ICE P.SAM KOSUY ANT) .TTIE, HON'BLE SITI JTJSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALTSHE'[TY WItIT' PEI'ITION No.29663 of 2O23 ORDER.4u,r' I ktn hlt. rt.lu.sticc P.S.AM KOS lYl Whcn tl-re mattcr is talr HIGH COURT DATED: 1911012023 ORDER WP.No.29663 of 2023 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS -rv{ '-r i\" io ti * $ J HC of g,L -(- 1 <' U 7 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM I{OSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY W.P. No. 28a6O of 2o23 ORDER:r,,, ,iz, .'r,, ;r, P.S/M KOSHY) Hcarcl Mr. A.V.A. Srva Kartikeya, learncd counsel for the petitioncr anrl Ms. B. Sapna Reddy, learned Junior Standing Counsel for Income T:rx ap;tcilring for the respondents. Peruscd thc entire record. 2. The instant petition has been filed challenging tlle Assessment Order passcd by rcspondent No. I under section 147 read rvith 1448 of the Ir-rcome Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as \"the Act\") darted 11.05.2023 lor the Assessment Year 2O16-77- 3. One of the contentions that the petitioner has raised in the preserlt writ petition is that under the amended provisions of the Act which came into effect from 01 .04.202 1 , the respondents while proceeding under Section 148 of the Act were required to issuc notice under Section 148A and provide an opportunity of hearing to the asscssce. As per thc amended provision of law, the proceedings to bc dralr,,n are also in a laceless 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 objcction that the pctitioner had raised, he relied upon the recent batch of writ 2 pctitions decided by thrs ei- Bcnc-h on l'+.09.2023 vrde W.P.No.25903 of 20'22 and brttt'h to the lirnited exlcnt. 4. Lcarncd counscl for tlrc i)ellartlllcnt wcluld not dispute of l'raving dr:cidecl thc said ol;jt:c:tiott irt the zrforesarcl batch matters. However, learncd coulseL sttltt'n;ts that apart frorn the aforesaid objection, there havc bccn olltcl virr-ious obiections etlso rvl.rich thc pelilioner has raised in thr vlil l|, rllion. 5. So lar as this cont{'nliolr of tl-tc lcarued counsel lor thc Departmcnt is conccrnctl. thts Elcncl.t, whilc disposing ol W.P.No.259O3 of 2022 ancl b:rtch had taken notc of thc same in paragraph No.37 u,hich is reprodrtt:ei l-rercitt ut'rder: \"37. The prclirninarl olrj<<:tion raisetl by the Petitioner rs sustained ancl all thcsc 'rit l)ctltious st.ul(ls allowcd on this vcrl' jurisdictional rs:jue . Srrrc( lhc r[rpugrrcd troticcs atrtl ordcrs arc gctting quashcd on rll.r i).,llr( ol lLrrls]clicti()D. re are llot inclined to procccd furtlrcr and ,lrttrlt tlrc ()tllcl tssues raiscd by thc petitroner whrclr stands tcsct vecl Lo be r;tiscd and conLettded in atr appropriaLe pr o< eedings.\" 6. In view of thc samc. wc al-c inclincd to allow the present writ petition also on sinrilar terrns. Acr:ordingly, the present Writ Petition stands allowed on thc objcr,'ttorr of the petitioncr that the proceedings have not been drawn in accorclance with the amended provision but under the unamended provision u'hich is otherwise uot sustainable. As has been held by this Betrch itr thc aforesaid batch matters, the right of the responclents rvould stand reserwed :rs is envisaged in paragraph No.37 ol the said b:rtcl.t. No order as to costs. 3 Consequentll.. rniscellancous stand closed. Dated: 13.10.)O23 Put petitions pending, if any, shall P.SAM KOSHY, J LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J "