Mrs. Chandini Rani Bathula V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 4(1), Hyderabad and The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 1, Hyderabad and The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana

WP/24315/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Mrs. Chandini Rani Bathula, who filed a writ petition against the Income Tax Department challenging the orders and notices issued for the Assessment Year 2015-16. The petitioner argued that the orders were arbitrary, illegal, and violated the principles of natural justice, as well as specific articles of the Constitution and sections of the Income Tax Act. The High Court noted that an identical matter had been previously decided in W.P.No.30153 of 2023, where the court had allowed the petition on similar grounds. Consequently, the court decided to allow Mrs. Bathula's petition in accordance with the earlier decision, emphasizing the need for adherence to the amended procedural requirements under the Income Tax Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 810686 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 10-11-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: W.P.No.30153 of 2023, W.P.No.25903 of 2022
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: B SARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: A V A KARTIKEYA
• Keywords: Assessment Year 2015-16; Faceless Proceedings; Income Tax; Jurisdictional issue; Natural Justice; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 148; 148A; 151 CPC; 14BA(d)

Judgement Text

"[ 337e ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION NO: 24315 OF 2022 Between: Mrs. Chandini Rani Bathula, W/o: Dr. A.Bhupesh Kumar' Aged 56 years, Occ. Associate Professor, R/o 3-5-700, Sri Sai Apartments, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad - 500 027, Telangana. ...PETITIONER 1. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward - 4(1), Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500 004' Telangana. 2. The Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax - 1, Hyderabad, Room No\" 71 1, lT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500 004' Telangana' 3. The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax, Andhra Pradesh and - fefangind, Hyderabad, Room No. 922,}th Floor, B Block, lT Towers, 10-2-3, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad - 500 004' Telangana. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India 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 glo4l2o22, passed u/s 14BA(d) of the Act, vide DIN and Notice No. ITBA/AST/F/148N2022-2311042772357(1), by the 'l\"t Respondent, for the Assessment Year 2015 - 16; and b. the notice dated 1gtO4lZO22, issued by the 1\"t Respondent, u/s 1 48 of the lncome Tax Act, 1 961 , vide DIN and Notice. ITBA/AST/S/148-112022- 2311042775335(1), for the Assessment Year 2015 - 16; as arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, void-ab-initio, violative of the principles of natural justice apart from being violative of Articles FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE AND Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A V A SIVA KARTTKEYA Counsel for the Respondents: SRI B. NARASIMHA SARMA The Court made the following: ORDER 14, 19(1Xg) and 265 of the Constitution of lndia and Sec. 148A of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 , and consequently set aside the same in the interests of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 dated 1910412022, issued by the 1 st Respondent, uis 148 of the lncome Tax Act, .l g61 , vide DIN and Notice. TTBA/AST/S/1 4B-112022- 23t104277533S(1), for the Assessment Year 2015 - 16, pending disposal of the above Writ petition. 7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUI{ARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.243rS OF 2022 ORDER: (per Hon'ble Si Justice P.SAM KOSHY) //TRUE COPY// SD/- K. AMMAJI I ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / SECNON6FFTCER to'r. ,n\" lncome Tax officer, Ward -^!(] ).H,voera9-ad' lT Towers' AC Guards' '. Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500 004' lelangana' 2. The Principrr commMiln\"', iiritib'\" iix - '1 Hvderabad' Room No\" 71 1' lT Towers, nc ouarii'ilia'siu'Ti'\"rt' Hvo\"rab-ab -'500 004' Telangana' 3. The Principal Chief d;';ffi;;;; oi intome-ra' Andhra Pradesh and Telanoana. Hvoeru#i, rioo\"niitli'' s'2i' gih aoor' B Block' lT Towers' 10-2-3' A.C. duards, Hyderabad - 500 004' lelangana' 4. &; cc t\" siiA. V.-nlsi'ik\"tir'iva'^49y9.\"31'[oPUc] ;. il;6d io sti a. Nl,rasimha Sarma' SCIoPUCI 6. Two CD CoPies TJ GJP af-, (AlonS with the Order Copy dt:30'10'2023 in W'P'No'30153 of 2023) When the matter is taken up for hearing today, it has been informed by the parties that an identical writ petition i.e., W.P.No.30153 of 2023 has already been allowed and disposed of uide order, dated 30.1O.2023. 2. In view of the fact that the identical matter has already been allowed by this Court, we are inclined to allow this writ petition also in terms of the order passed in W.P.No.3O153 of 2O23 decided on 30.I0.2023 on similar terms. 3. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any in this writ petition, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. I HIGH COURT DATED:1011112023 ORDER WP.No.24315 of 2022 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT GOSTS. 023 o e' ( 4. q + ;tE ST47 J C o * n o It r 2 21 0EI I c+&+ i^ffi THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRJ JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY W.P. No. 30153 of 2o23 Q!!p$: pe, ao n'bte Si Justice P.SAM KosHY) Heard Mr. A.V.A. Siva Kartikeya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. B. Sapna Reddy, learned Junior Standing Counsel for Income Tax appearing for the respondents. Perused the entire record. 2. The instant petition has been filed challenging the Assessment Order passed by respondent No.1 under section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as \"the Act\") dated 25.04-2022 for the Assessment Year 2Ol8-19. 3. One of the contentions that the petitioner has raised in the present writ petition is that under the amended provisions of the Act which came into effect from 01.O4.2O21, the respondents whiie proceeding under Section 148 of the Act were required to issue notice under Section 148A and provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. As per the amended provision of law, the proceedings to be drawn are also in a faceless manner. Whereas, it has been contended by the petitioner that in the instant case, reopening has been initiated by the Juridictional Assessing Officer. In respect of the said objection that the petitioner had raised, he relied upon the recent batch of writ 2 4. Learned counsel for the Department would having decided the said objection in the aforesaid not dispute of batch matters. However, learned counsel submits 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 Department is concerned, this Bench, while disposing of W.P.No.259O3 of 2022 and batch had taken note of the same in paragraph Nos.37 & 38 which is reproduced herein under: \"37. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner is sustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed on this very jurisdictional issue. Since the impugned notices and orders are getting quashed on the point ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed 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 Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one-time measure exercising the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, permitted the Revenue 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. 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 unamended provision which is otherwise not sustainable. petitions decided by this very Bench on 14.O9 .2023 vide W.P.No.259O3 of 2022 and batch to the limited extent. 3 As has been held by this Bench in the aforesaid batch matters, the right of the respondents would stand reserved as is envisaged in paragraph Nos.37 & 38 of the said batch. No order as to costs. 7 . Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. P.SAM KOSHY, J LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J Dated:30. 10.2023 aqs "