Mr.VINOD KUMAR ALVA MENAL V. The Income Tax Officer

WP/12894/2024

AI Insights

The case involved a writ petition filed by Mr. Vinod Kumar challenging the assessment order passed by the Income Tax Department under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2015-16. The petitioner argued that the notice issued under Section 148 was invalid as it did not comply with the modified reassessment process stipulated by the Finance Act, 2021. The High Court referenced a common order in a batch of writ petitions (W.P.No.25903 of 2022) decided on 14.09.2023, which had set aside similar notices and orders on procedural grounds. The court's decision was based on the jurisdictional issue of the notices and orders being procedurally incorrect, leading to their quashing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 752902 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 03-05-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Ashish Agarwal
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Finance Act, 2021, Finance Act, 2027
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: B REDDY; B MUKHERJEE
• Assessee Lawyers: V REDDY
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Jurisdiction; Natural Justice; Reassessment Process; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 151; 226

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT FOR THE SI1IE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original .lurisUlciion)' .. FRIDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY;OUR [ 3403 ] ...PETITIONER PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION NO:12894oF 2024 Between AND MT.VINOD KUIMAR At VA IUENAL , 2-2OStp. Moodayuru House, puttur Taluk Padavannur, tshwaramangara, oar<]hlna--x\"a.riril[J]S,r,u of Karnataka. Officer, Ward 14(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, If iJ:'[:'fl'X\"Si\"i,f \",{!::}\"#!oB'olz:ome rax, A p & rerangana, fh\" Assessment Unit. lncome Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre. Dcthi.J ,ilinistry ,i firri[E,.'niom No.4O.l, 2nd Floor, E. Ramp, Jawahartat Nehru Stadiuni, ollhi'] r'oiiboi\" The Union of lndia, Rep. by its secretary, ft/inistry of Finance, New Derhi. ...RESPONDENTS petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction particurarry one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus' decraring the Assessment order, dated 2610312024 passed by the 1st Respondent under Section 147 rcad with section 144 0t the rncome Tax Act for the Assessment year 2015-16 vide Document rdentification Number (DrN) I'BA/AST/S/14712023-2411063418629(1), which is passed as a consequence of the notice under Section 148, dated 3lO2l2O24 vide DtN ,rBA/AST/F/147(scN)t2o23-24/1060474725(1) issued by the 1.r Respondent instead of Faceress Assessing officer, as void, ilregar, without Jurisdiction and 1 The lncome Tax Hyderabad-500 004 a 4 contrary to the provisicns of lncome Tax Act and contrary to the Principles of Natural Justice. lA NO: 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 grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the Assessment Order, dated 2610312024 passed by the 1St Respondent under Section 147 rcad with Section 144 of the lncome Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2015-16 vide Document ldentification Number (DlN) ITBA/ASf lSl 1 47 12023-241 1 06341 8629(1). Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl. V SIDDHARTH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : Ms B SAPNA REDDY, REP. SRI J V PRASAD,SC FOR INCOME TAX Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : SRI B MUKHERJEE REP. SRI GADI PRAVERN KUMAR DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.12894 OF 2024 ORDER: (per Hon'bte Justice Sujog Paul) . Heard Sri V. Siddharth Reddy, learned counsei for the petitioner(s), Ms.B.Sapna Reddy, learned counsel represents Sri J.V.Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent(s)-Income Tax Department and Sri B. Mukherjee, learned counsel represents Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for the respondent(s)- Central Government, 2. The ground taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner(s) is that in furtherance of Finance Act, 2O27, re- assessment process stood modified but the respondents have not taken care of it and therelore notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, I 96 I 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 ag_reed that curtains on this issue are finally drawn by this Court in a batch of u,rit petitions, W.p.No.259O 3 of 2022 and other connected matters, decided b_y comrnon ordcr dated 14.09.2023. The parties agreed that this matrer ma_v be disposed of in terms of the Common Order dated 14.O9.2023. 4. This Court in the said order dated t4.Og.2023 ln W.P.No.25903 of 2022, held as under: ,,3S. In view of the aforesaid dircussions, it is by now very clear that the procedure to be folloBed by the respondent- Department upon treating the notices issued for reassessment being under Sectioa l4gA, the subsequent proceedings was mandatorily required to be undertaken undcr the substituted provisions as laid down under the Finance Act, 2O21. In the absence of which, we are constrained to hotd that the procedure adopted by the respondent_Department is in contravention to the statute i.e. the Finance Act, 2O21, at the first instance. Secondly, it Is also in direct contravention to the directives issued by the Hon,btc Supreme Court in the case ofAshish Agarwal, supra. 36. For al.l the aforesaid reasons, the impugned notices issued and the proceedings drawn by the respondent_Department is neithet tenable, tror sustainable. The aotices ao issued and the procedure adopted being per se iltcgal, deserves to be and are accordingly set aside/quashed- As a consequence, atl the impugned orders getting quashed, the consequentiar orders passed by the respordent Department pursuant to thc notices issued under Scctior l4Z and I4g would also get quashed and it is ordered accordiugly. The reason we are queahing the consequential order is on the principtes that when the initiafiou of the proceedings itself was procedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also get6 nullified automatically. 37. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner is sustalned and all these writ petitions stands allowed on this very jurisdictional issue, Since the iEpugned notices and orders are getting quashed on the point ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to p.oceed 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 Hoa'ble Suprerne Court had, in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra, as e one-time rneasure excrcising the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of tndia, permitted the Rev€nue 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. 39. No order as to costs.\" 5. In view of the consensus arrived, the impugned Show Cause notice and consequential orders passed in this writ petition are set aside. Liberty is reserved to both the parties to take respective stand and to proceed in accordance with law as per paragraph No.38 of the order dated 14.O9.2023 in W.P.No.259O3 of 2022. 6. The writ petition is allowed. No costs. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed SD/- P,Ch. NAGABHUSHAMBA ASSISTANT REGIS R //TRUE COPY// SECTIO OFFICER i l I I I To, 1 2 The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 14('1 ), Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh' Hyderabad-500 004. ifre erincipal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax' A P and Telangana' lT Towers, lVlasab Tank, Hyderabad-500 004' The Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi tvlinistry of Finance, Room No 401, 2nd Floor' E' Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi - 100 003' The becretary, Union of lndia, tvlinistry of Finance, New Delhi' One CC to SRl. V SIDDHARTH REDDY, Advocate lOPUCl One CC to SRl. J V PRASAD, SC FOR INCOIME TAX [OPUCI o;; CC to SRt GADI PRAVEEN KUlvAR, DEPUTY sollclroR GENERAL oF rNDrA.[OPUC] Two CD Copies \" .#- a J 4 E 6 7 8 SB GJP l HIGH COURT DATE D : 0 310512024 ORDER WP.No.12894 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS B o lHE ST4 ( o a) t i B Jrlh 2024 ( ( '{ {\" * t)lsp4TCHF- "