Mr. Zaheeruddin Syed Mohammad 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

WP/3149/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Mr. Zaheeruddin Syed Mohammad, the petitioner, challenging the legality of the notices and orders issued by the Income Tax Department under sections 148A(d) and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2018-19. The petitioner argued that these actions were arbitrary, illegal, and violated principles of natural justice, as well as specific articles of the Constitution of India and sections of the Income Tax Act. The respondents included various officials from the Income Tax Department. The court's decision was influenced by a previous judgment in a similar case, which highlighted procedural lapses in the issuance of such notices under the amended law.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 795916 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 08-02-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Ashish Agarwal
• 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 SIVA KARTIKEYA
• Keywords: Arbitrary; Illegal; Income Tax; Natural Justice; Void ab initio; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 148; 148A(d); 265; 226

Judgement Text

"[ 337e ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURAELE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITIoN NO: 3149 OF 2024 AND 1 Between: Mr. Zaheeruddin Syed Mohammad, S/o: Mr' Syed Mohammed, qg:g ?6 vears, Occ. BusinesS, H. No.:9-1-80, National Tea Emporium' Ahmedi tsazar' irlizamabad - 503 001 , Telangana. ...PETITIONER The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle 1, Nizamabad, lncome fix Otfice, 6-2-156/3, Subash Nagar, Nizamabad - 503 002, Telangana' The Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax' 2, Hyderabad, l T Towers, 10-2- 3, AC Guards, Hyderabad - 500 004' Telangana 3. Assessment unit, lncome Tax. Department, National e-Assessment centre, - r.16* b\"ir,l, Rooni No. 4o1,2\"d Flbor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, New Delhi - 110 003 2 ...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 1'r Respondent, u/s 148A(d) of the lncomeTaxAct'1961,dated19.04.2O22,bearingDlNandNoticeNo'' tTBA/AST/F/148N2022-2311O42779OO8(1), for the Assessment Year 20181-19, and b. the notice issued by the 1't Respondent, u/s 148 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, dated 19.04.2022, bearing DIN and Notice No . ITBA/AST/S/148-112022- 23t104277g54g(1 ), for the Assessment Year 2018 - 19 arbitrary, illegal, bad in law,void-ab-initio,violativeoftheprinciplesofnaturaljUsticeapartfrombeing violative of Articles 14, 19(1xg) and 265 of the constitution of lndia and sec. 1484 I of the lncome Tax Act, '196'1 , and consequently set aside the same in the interests of 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 stay all further proceedings, including any recovery, pursuant to the notice issued by the 1.r Respondent, u/s 148 of the lncome Tax Act, '1961, dated 19.04.2022, bearing DIN and Notice No. ITBA/AST/S/148-112022- 2311042779549(1), for the ASSeSSmentYear20lS-lg,pendingdisposaloftheaboveWritPetition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A V A SIVA KARTIKEYA Counsel for the Respondent: SUNDARI R PISUPATI (Sr SC for Income Tax DePt) The Court made the following: ORDER THI HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSITY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUI{ARAMJI qIRIT PETITION No.3149 0F 2024 ORDER: (per Hon'ble Si Justice P'SAM KoSHll) The instant Writ Petition has been ,filed by the petitioner under Articl e 226 of the Constitution of lndia seeking for the following reliefi \"...to issue a Wit of Mandamus or anA otler appropiate iit Ord., or Direction declaing the order passed ba the 1\"* respondent, u/s 148A(d) of tle lncome .Tox- Act' 1961' dated 19-O4-2O22, beaing DIN and Notice No: isite$tett48A/2022'%/1o42779oo8(1), fo' the ot\"\"\"\"*.rt gear 2O18-19; & tle notice issued.bg the 1\" resoondent, -r/\" UA of tle Iname Tox Act' 1961' dated lsli+.ilzi, beaing DIN and Notice No: isetesrts/t48-1/2622-23/1042779s49(1), fo' the '\"tii\"ti\"t'g\"rr-2o18-19; as arbitrary' illegal' bad in lauL' uiia-ou-i\"itiol, uiolatiue of the pincrptes of natura[ justLce ;;;;i;; bleins uotatiui of Aiictes 14' 1e(1.)(g) and 265 of i-ie Cinstitutioi of India & Sec' 148A of tle Income Tax Act' 1961, and- consequentlg set aside the same.in-the interests of justice; and. pass ich other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and ProPer\"' 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 required to issue notice under Section 148A and provide ar oppor-tunity of hearing to the 2 PSI(,J & J lrR,J W.P.No.3t49 o! 2024 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 pedtioner contended that, in the instant case, reopening has been initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. In support of his contention, he relied upon the recent judgment rendered by rhis very Bench in Wp.No.259O3 of 2022 & batch, dated 14.O9.2023 wherein this Court disposed of the batch of r.r'rit petitions to the limited extent. 4 On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the responden t- De partment objection was decided does not dispute that the said in the aforesaid batch of Writ Petitions. Horvever, he further contended that apart from the aforesaid objection, there have been other various objections also u.hich the petitioner has raised in the writ petition 5. So far as this contention of the learned counsel for the respondent Depa_rtment is concerned, this Bench, while disposing ol said batch of writ petitions, had taken note of 3 't PSK,J & NTR'J W.P.No.S149 of 2O24 the same at paragraph Nos'37 & 38 which are reproduced herein under: \"37. Tle preliminary objection rai'sed bg the petitioner is sustaiied and alltheie wit petitions stands alloued in- ini\" uery juisdictional issue' Sine tte impugned iotices ani irders are getting qtasled on the point of junsdiction, u)e dre not-indined to proceed furtler and 'decide the other issues raised by tlle petitioher uthich stands reserued to be roised and contended in an ap pr op riate Pro ce eding s. \" \"38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court lnd, in tle case of Ashish Agarutal, supra. o's a one-time meosure Jxercising tie pouters under Article 142 of the Constituion of Ind.ia, permitted the Reuenue to proceed und-er the iuAstituied provisions, and this Court iti.*i\"g the petitions onlg on tle pr-oceduro.l Jlaw' the noht cinfenid on the Reuenue utould remain reserued ,i prouia prther if theg so want from the stag-e -of the iri\", o7 tlre Supieme- Court in the case of Ashish Aganuo suPra.\" 6. [n view of the same' we are inclined to allor\"' the present $'rit petition also on similar terms' Accordingly' the present Writ Petition stands allowed on the objection of the petitioner that the proceedings have not been draw'n 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 aforesaid batch matters, the rights of the parties would stand reserved as is 4 To, PSK,J & JYTR,J W.P.No.S749 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/. V, HARI PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SEGTIO OFFICER The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle 1, Nizamabad, lncome Tax Office, 6-2-156/3, Subash Nagar, Nizamabad - 503 002, Telangana. The Principal Commissioner of lncome f ax - 2, Hyderabad, l.T. Towers, 10-2- 3, AC Guards, Hyderabad - 500 004, Telangana. Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department,, National e-Assessment Centre, New Delhi, Room No. 401 ,Znd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, New Delhi - 110 003 One CC to Sri A V A Siva Kartikeya, Advocate TOPUCI One CC to Sri Sundari R Pisupati (Sr SC for lncome Tax Dept) [OPUC] Two CD Copies 1 2 3 4 5 6 TJ GJP HIGH COURT DATED:0810212024 ORDER WP.No.3149 of 2024 ALLOWTNG THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS. @ c\"tu ,4'_ jR rrE S 14 /6' c 2 14Ai AiCH ?024 z a o I e.lp EO Gbv "