Ms. Dhana Lakshmi Vallabhaneni V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 12(1), Hyderabad and The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1, Hyderabad and Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, National e-Assessment Center

WP/3978/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Ms. Dhana Lakshmi Vallabhaneni, the petitioner, challenging an order by the Income Tax Officer under sections 147 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The petitioner argued that the order was 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 main contention was that the reopening of the assessment was initiated under unamended provisions of the law, which was not sustainable. The court referenced a previous judgment where similar issues were addressed, leading to the quashing of the impugned notices and orders on jurisdictional grounds.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 675172 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 15-02-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Ashish Aganual
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: J V PRASAD
• Assessee Lawyers: A V A SIVA KARTIKEYA
• Keywords: Assessment year 2018-19; Faceless Proceedings; Income Tax; Jurisdictional issue; Natural Justice; Writ petition
• Section: 147; 144B; 148A; 265

Judgement Text

"[ 337e ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (SPecial Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No:3978 OF 2024 Between: Ms.Dhana Lakshmi Vallabhaneni, D/o.Mr'V'Jaggagl'', ageg 9!9Yl 5q .v\"?':A 999' ii;r;;-vii\", Frai No- c-zoi, ahirvrt Ananda\"ri, Nizampet' Kukatpallv - 50o o72' Telangana. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 12(1 ), HYlerabad,Aayakar Bhawan' Opp' LB ' Stadium, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad - 500 004 2. The Principal Commissioner Of lncome Tax 1,, Hyderabad' lT Towers' 10-2- - i,'i.c. c-,]Eios, uasao Tank, Hyderabad - 500 o04, Telangana' 3- Assessment Unit,, lncome Tax Department, National e-Assessment Center' \" i'i6',iii\"r'n\"i,'R;;' No. tit' iia Flbor, E-Ramp, Jawahadal Nehru stadium' New Delhi - 110 003. . ...RESPONDENTS PetitionunderArticle226oltheConstitutionoflndiaprayingthatinthe circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be pleased to the order passed by the 1st Respondent' u/s 147 tlw Sec' 1448 of the lncomeTaxAct,lg6l,dated30'O1'2024'bearingDlNandNoticeNo\" lTBA/AST/F/14712023-24t1060257562(1)' for the Assessment Year 2018 - 19' as arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, void-ab-initio' violative of the principles of natural justice, apart from being violative of Articles 1a, 19(1Xg) and 265 of the Constitution of lndia and Sec 148A of the lncome Tax Act' 1 961 ' and consequently set aside the same' ;: t 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 order passed by the 1st Respondent, u/s 147 rtw Sec. 1448 of the lncome Tax Act, '1961, dated 30.O1.2024, beE.ring DIN and Notice No.ITBtuAST/F114712023- 241 1060257562(1), forthe Assessment Year 2018 - 19. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI A.V'A.SIVA KARTIKEYA Counsel for the Respondents: SRI J.V.PRASAD, (Sr. SC FOR INCOME TAX) The Court made the following: ORDER i THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P'SAM KOSITY AND THE HoNouRABLE \"*i'i'\"t\"E N'TUKARAMJI TIONNo.39780F2o24 ORDER:(per H on'ble Sn Justice P'SAilrI KOSHY) The instant Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articl e 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the following relief: '...to decrare in'*\"o.ll',1,1?\"?i1o l,{*t:.tll'l ResPondent.r'rnu:::^::\"'r; o.., 1961 dated 1448 of the t\":31[r.;1oti.\"'r.ro.nen/Asr/F 30.o r'2024 bearing D-r N an:, lY ::: .il - n..=\"\"\"*ttt \"r ii iioi' zo l rceo2s7s62.11) r:' g: fi: Year 20 18- 1 e \"\" ;;;;'''u;g1,111 t:tt?,:?'$ \"o*i\"rti', violative -\"j,-y\"\"'i3;:pi? n]'.i\"r\"\" r+, iustice apart r-'9*.11'18-l:.,.';;;.; of tnaia a''d 19(1)(g) and' 265- of ute uorr>ur'-*-:\";^--- i qO t tt'a ri:*;,r;l \":i *':\"'.\";: TL:i til i' i\"'\" \"'\" o r justice and to Pass\"' 2. One of the contentions that the petitioner has rarsed in the present Writ Petition is that under the amended provisions of or.o4.2021, 14EA the Act which carne into effect from the respondents' while proceeding under Secdon 14g of the Act, were required to issue notice under and provide an opportunity of hearing to the Section ? PSr,J & ^rrR,J W.P.No.S978 oJ 2O24 assessee. As per the amended provision of law, the proceedings to be drawn are also in a faceless manner. 3. Whereas, learned counsel for the petitioner 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 this very Bench in Wp.No.25903 of 2022 & batch, dated 14 .O9.2023 wherein this Court disposed of the batch of trit 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 dispsing of said batch of writ petitions, had taken note of -,- - 3 PSI(,J& lIr&J W.P.No.3978 oJ 2O24 the same at paragraph Nos.37 & 38 which are reproduced herein under: \"37. The preliminary objection raised bg the petitioner i.s sustained and all these uit petiflons stands allouted on this uery juisdictional issue. Since the impugned notices and orders are gettirLg quashed on tle point of jurisdiction, u)e are not inclined to ptoceed further and decide the otler issues raised bg the petitioner uhich stands reserued to be raised and antended in an ap prop iate p rocee ding s. \" \"38. Since th.e Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the case of Ashi.sh Aganual, supra, as a one-tim.e rleasure exerci.sing th.e pouers under Article 142 of thp Constitution of tndia, permitted the Reuenue to proceed under the substihtted prouisions, and this Court allou.ting the petitions onlA on tle procedural flaut, tle right confened on the Reuenue uould remain reserued to proceed furtler if tlLeg so tuant from the stage of the order of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Aganaal, 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 accordzrnce 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 i 4 PSI(,J& I TTR,J W.P.No.3978 ol 2024 envisaged at paragraph Nos.37 & 38 of the said order passed in the batch of writ petitions. No order as to costs. 8. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall sta-nd closed. SD/. C. PRAVEEN KUMAR ASSISTANT EGIS RAR ,,TRUE COPY/I SECTION OFFICER / To, tig,pt*',ptg3i*+i*4,igu.\"r'S[ffi *; r gru t:'U :t':tl esx{hu sE\"A AiilB'sffi 't?Ilf lo' u \"r 6. Two CD CoPtes' BSK GJP w ) HIGH COURT DATED: 1 510212024 ORDER WP.No.3978 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PET1TION WITHOUT COSTS &[st { B r- H c s E H 1 t4 ? € ? D o C) 3 A T H PA 02 c I i (. B tr- "