Musharaff Mehdi Syed V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle (1) and Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hyderabad -1 and The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

WP/4962/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Musharaff Mehdi Syed, the petitioner, challenging the orders and notices issued by the Income Tax Department for the assessment year 2019-20. The petitioner argued that the orders were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessment Unit, as required by the amended provisions of the Income Tax Act effective from April 1, 2021. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claiming that the actions taken were void and violated the principles of natural justice. The court's decision was influenced by a similar batch of writ petitions it had previously disposed of, which addressed the same jurisdictional issue.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 795247 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 26-02-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: WP No. 25903 of 2022 & batch, dated 14.09.2023
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: VIJHAY PUNNA
• Assessee Lawyers: DUNDU MANMOHAN
• Keywords: Faceless assessment; Income Tax; Jurisdictional issue; Natural Justice; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 148; 148A(d); 226

Judgement Text

"[ 337e ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH 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:4962 OF 2024 Between: Musharaff Mehdi Syed, S/o Syed Yusaf Nawab Age.62years Occ.Business 8-2- 293l82lLl33OlA, Road No.12, Banjara Hills MLA Colony, Hyderabad - 500034, Telangana. .....PETITIONER AND 1 . Deputy Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle (1 ),1 T Tower, Ac Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad- 500004. 2. Principal Commissioner Of lncome Tax, Hyderabad -'1 , 1Oth Floor, C-Block, l.T. Towers, 10-2-3, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad-500004 3. The Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, Ministry of Finance, Room No. 4O1 ,2nd Floor, E- Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi-1 '10003. .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writof Mandamus, declaring the impugned order dt. 1210412023 lor A.Y.2019-20 passed u/s 148A(d) of the Act vide DIN No. ITBA/AST|F|149N 2022-23 I 105204807 8('l )and the consequential notice u/s 148 at.1210412O23 vide DIN No. ITBA/ASTlsl148-112022-2311052049078(1 ), issued by the JA0(1st respondent) instead of FAO(3rd respondent),as void, illegal, and contrary to the provisions of lncome-tax Act and contrary to the Principles of Natural Justice. |.A.NO:1 OF 2024 d petition Under Section 1 51 CpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to stay a' further proceedings pursuant to the notice u/s 14g dt. 12/04/2023_ vide DIN No.ITBA/AST/F t14B_112022- 23t1OS2O4gOtB(1)_ issued by the 1.r Respondent(JAO)for A.y. 2019-20instead of 3rd respondent(FAO). Counsel for the petitioner: SRI DUNDU MANMOHAN Counsel for the Respondents : SRt VIJHAY K.PUNNA The Court made the following ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.4962 0F 2024 ORDER: (per Ho n'ble Si Justice P.SAM KOSHfl) Heard Mr.Dundu Manmohan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Vijhay K. punna, Iearned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department for respondents. Perused the material available on record. 2. The instant Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articl e 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the following reliet 'to issue on oppropriote writ order or direction more porticulorly one in the noture of Writ ol Mondomus decloring the impugned order dt 12/04/2023 for A Y 201920 possed u/s 148Ad ol the Act vide DtN No ITBA/AST/F/148A/ 202223 / 1OS2O4BO7B(1) oN the consequentidt notice u/s 148 ot 12/04/2023 vide DIN No |TBA/AST/S/1481/202221/1052049078(1) issued by the JAo 1st respondent insteod of FAO3td respondent os void illegol ond controry to the provisions of lncome tox Act ond controry to the principles of Noturol !ustice\". One of the contentions that the petitioner has raised the present Writ Petition is that under the amended AND 3. in 2 PSI(,J & MTR,J W.P.No.4962 of 2024 provisions of the Act which carne into effect from Ol.O4.2O2I, the respondents, while 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' 4. Whereas, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, in the instalt 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.Og.2023 wherein this Court disposed of the batch of writ petitions to the limited extent' 5. 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 a-lso which the petitioner has raised in the writ petltron 3 PSK,J & NTR,J W.P.No.4962 oJ 2O24 6. So far as this contention of the learned counsel for the respondent-Department is concerned, this Bench, while disposing of said batch of writ petitions, had taken note of the same at paragraph Nos.37 & 3g which are reproduced herein under: ?7 fhe preliminary objection rai.sed_ bg the petitioner is sustained and all *Ese uit petitions standi alloued_ on this uery jurisdictional issue. Since the impugned. ?d:n-? and orders are getting quoshed on tlrc point of jurisdiction, u)e are not inclined to proceed furtier and decide the otLer issues raised bg the ptiiioner tthbh stands reserued to be raised and- contended. in an approp riote proceeding s., \"38. Sine the Hon'ble Suprem.e Court had, in tLe case of Ashish Aganuol, supra, as a one-time measure elerctsing the powers under Article 142 of the Constihttion of Indta, permitted. tlrc Reuenue to pioceed, under the substituted prouisions, and thii Court allotuing the petitions only on the proedurat ftaut, th.e right confered on the Reuenue uould remain reserved to proceed further if theg so uant from the stage of the order of the Supreme Court in .tLe case oj ein5n Agontal, supra.\" 7 . In view of the same, we are inclined to allow the present writ p€tition 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 othenrise not sustainable. 4 PSI(,J & MTR,J W.P.No.4962 of 2024 8. As has been held by this Bench in the aforesaid batch matters, the rights of the parties would stand reserved as is 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 Ass,siRlirci:5'.jilA V //TRUE COPY/' SECTION OFFICER ro r. rn\".oo\"1;y*ffiffi,;.,o*,. elrncome rax, circle (1),1 T Tower' Ac Guards' I tgglffiffi,,,-i.'*pr#l--d; :, SA KKS w -ti r.. HIGH COURT DATED:2610212024 ORDER WP.No.4962 of 2024 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. l HE S-I4I6 O 2 APfi 21I7I SPATCHtsv ( J o o i * Z# -tr\"- "