Ms. Vijaya Lakshmi Koneru V. The Income Tax Officer - Ward 11(1), Hyderabad and The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 2, Hyderabad and Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, National e-Assessment Center, New Delhi

WP/3266/2024

AI Insights

Ms. Vijaya Lakshmi Koneru filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the Income Tax Officer, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, and the Assessment Unit of the Income Tax Department, challenging the legality of the notices and orders issued for the assessment year 2018-19. The petitioner argued that the notices 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 court referenced a previous judgment in a similar case, WP.No.25903 of 2022 & batch, which had addressed similar jurisdictional issues under the amended provisions of the Income Tax Act. The court's decision to allow the writ petition was primarily based on the procedural law and jurisdictional compliance with the amended provisions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 676947 (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: J V PRASAD
• Assessee Lawyers: A V A KARTIKEYA
• Keywords: Faceless Proceedings; Income Tax; Jurisdictional issue; Natural Justice; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 148; 148A(d); 148A

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY ANO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION NO:3266 OF 2L24 [ 3s7e I ...PETITIONER Between: Ms. Vijaya Lakshmi Koneru, D/o. Jaggaiah Venigalla, Aged about 60 years, Occ. Housewife, H.No.:A Block, 305, Bhavyas Anandam Apartment, Nizampet Road, Hyderabad - 500 072, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana. AND 1 2 The lncome Tax Officer - Ward 11(1), Hyderabad, Signature Towers, Opp. Botanical Gardens, Kondapur, Hyderabad - 500 084. The Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax - 2, Hyderabad, Signature Towers, Opp. Botanical Gardens, Kondapur, Hyderabad - 5O0 084. 3. Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department, National e-Assessment Center, New Delhi, Room No. 401, 2\"o Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, New Delhi - 110 0O3 ...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 passed by the 1't Respondent, u/s 148A(d) ofthe lncome Tax Act, 1961 , daled 2210412022, bearing DIN and Notice No. ITBA/AST/F/148 N2O22-2311O42825909( 1), {or the Assessment Year 2018 - 19, and b. the Rotice issued by the 1't Respondent, uis 148 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, dated 2210412022, bearing DIN and Notice No. ITBAJAST/S 1148_112022- 23t1}42826g65(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, 1961, and consequently set aside the same in the interests of justice. IA 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 u/s 148 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, dated 2210412022, bearing DIN and Notice No. l TBA/AST/S/148_1/2022-2311042826965(1), for the Assessmenr year 2O1B - 19, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A V A SIVA KARTIKEYA counset for the Responaer,ts?fv PRASAD (Sr. SC FoR INcoME TAx) The Court made the following: ORDER i THE HONOT'RABLE SRI WSTICE P.SAM KOSITY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI WSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.3266 OF 2024 ORDER: (per Hon'ble Si Justice P.SAM KOSHY) The instant Writ Petition has been frled by the petitioner under Articl e 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the following relief: \"...to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropiate Wit Order or Direction declaring tle order passed bg the 7.t respondent, u/s 148A(d) of the Iname Tax Act, 1961, dated 22.04.2022, beaing DIN and Notice iYo: ITBA/AST/F/ 148A/2022- 23/ 1042825909(1), for fhe assessment Aear 2O18-19; & the notice issued bg the 7st respondent, u/s 148 of tLe Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 22.04.2022, beaing DIN and Notice No: ITBA/AST/S/ 148_1/2022- 23/ 1042826965(1), for the assessment Aear 2O18-19; as arbitrary, illegal, bad. in lant ', uoid-ab-initio, uiolatiue of tLe principLes of natural justice apart from being uiolatiue of Articles 14, 19(1 )(g) and 265 of tle Corstitution of India & Sec. 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequentlg set aside tle same in tle tnterests of justie; and pass such other orders a.s this Hon'ble Court m.ag 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 czune into effect from 01.O4.2O2I, the respondents, while proceeding under Section 148 of the Act, were required to issue notice under ,/ 2 PSI(,J & MTR,J W.P.No.3266 of 2O24 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. 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 14.09.2023 wherein this Court disposed of the batch of writ 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 disposing of sajd batch of writ petitions, had taken note of /// 3 PSK,J & NTR,J W.P.No.3266 oJ 2O24 the same at paragraph Nos.37 & 38 which are reproduced herein under: \"37. TLE preliminary objection raised bg the petitioner is sustained and\" all these urit petitions stands alloued on this uery jurisdictionol issue. Sine the impugned notices and orders are getting quashed on the point of jurisdiction, u)e ane not inclined to proceed furtter and decide tle other issues raised by the petilioner uhich stands reserued to be roised and contended in an ap p rop riate p ro ceeding s. \" '38. Since tLe Hon'ble Supreme Court lnd, in the case of Ashish Agarutal, supra, as a one-time measure exercbing the pouers under Article 1a2 of the Constitution of India, permitted the Reuenue to proceed. under the substituted provisions, and this Court allouing tFe petitions onlg on the procedural Jlaw, the right confened on the Reuenue would remain reserued to proceed furtLer if they so utant from the stage of the order of tle Supreme Court in th.e case of Ashish Aganaal, supra.\" 6. In view of the szune, 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 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 resered as is 4 PSI(,J & /v:r&J W.P.No.3266 o;f 2O24 envisaged at paragraph Nos.37 & 3g 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 //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANTREGISTRA SECTIO OFFICER To, I 2 2 The lncome Tax Officer - Ward. 11( 1), Hyderabad, Signature Towers, Opp. tsotanicat Gardens, Kondapur, ttvcjeiiojJ : sdo'-oai*' -*' r ne Hnncrpat Commissioner of lricome.Tax _ Z, iyaieraOaO, Signature towers, opp. Botanicat Garrtens, Koniailr, Hi;##l\"soo og+ Assessment Unit, lncome Ta) NswSSi;i.TStlili\"fr:,,ii;,fi 33ru:A:#i\",H,\"#ii,'\"1i,.31s.,tH:, 9n\" 99 !o ^SJi A V A Sivakartikeya, Advocate IOpUCI one cc ro Sri J V prasad (Sr. sc'fo; tn;;;i\"a,rj'r5E,ucr Two CD Copies 4 5 6 TJ BS $ I I I g HIGH COURT DATED:0810212024 ORDER WP.No.3266 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION .- -. 1 tr.i l, t) 2 0 tL/,R 2024 I * i:r .s;: . , ,1 WITHOUT COSTS. @'** S..)- 6v* ( "