Nageswara Rao Patibandla V. Office of The Income Tax Officer

WP/6343/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Nageswara Rao Patibandla, the petitioner, challenging an assessment order issued by the Income Tax Authorities for the Assessment Year 2016-17. The petitioner argued that the order was passed without following the procedural requirements set out in the amended provisions of the Income Tax Act, specifically concerning the faceless assessment process. The respondents included various income tax authorities and the Union of India. The court's decision was influenced by precedents set in similar cases, where procedural flaws in the assessment process were identified.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 753769 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 12-03-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: W.P.No.259O3 of 2022, Ashish Agarwal vs. Revenue
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: B SAPNA REDDY; K RAJESH REDDY
• Assessee Lawyers: THANNERU KUMAR
• Keywords: Faceless assessment; Income tax assessment; Jurisdictional issue; Natural Justice; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 147; 148; 144B; 148A; 265; 226

Judgement Text

"![ 3379 ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF TVARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION NO: 63430F 2024 Between: AND 1 2 Nageswara Rao Patibandla, S/o Venkateswarulu patibandla, Occ:Business aged about 66jears, R-/o. H No-4-6-9i502, Srinivasa Towers Savarkar Nagar, Nacharanr X Rods Nacharam Hyderabad 500026, Telangana, lnOia.pAN. AWQPBBoT3J Assessment Y ear. 2O16-1 7 ...PETITIONER Office of The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 13(3), Hyderabad, Telangana State. The Frincipal Ctief Commissioner Of lncome Tax Telangana And Ap Hyderabad, lT Towers AC Guards Masab Tank, Hydera6ad Telangana The Central Board Of Direct 1axes. Represented By lts Chairman, Department of Revenue, Ministry ot Finance, Goveinment of lndia, Secretariat Buildings, New Delhi The National Faceless Assessment Center, lncome Tax Department, New Delhi The Union Of lndia, Represented By lts Secretary To The Government, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi ...RESPONDENTS J 4 Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumslances 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 Writ of Mandamus declaring the order passed by the 3rd (National Faceless E-Assessment Centre) completed the assessment U/S 147 read with section 1448 of the lncome-tax Act Date of Order 23-02-2024, DINITBA/AST/S 114712023-2411061409975(1 ) for the Assessment year 2016'12 determining the total income of Rs. 30,17,01gtas arbitrary, iltegal, bad in law, wrthout jurisdiction, void-ab-initio, vrolative ot the princrples of rralural justice apart from being violative of Articres 14, i9(1)(g) and 265 of the constitution of rndra and Sec. 14BA of the lncome Tax Act, 1g61, and consequen y set aside the same in the in terests of justrce. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: MS. B. SAPNA REDDY, (sc FoR TNCOME rAX) Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI K. RAJESH REDDY, SC The Cou( made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSITY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAIUJI UIRIT PETITION No.6343 OF 2024 ORDER:lper Hon'ble Si Justice P.SAM KOSHY) Heard Mr. T.Chaitanya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. B.Sapna Reddy, learned junior Standing Counsel for Income Tax appearing for respondent Nos. I to 4 and Mr. K.Rajesh Reddy, Iearned Standing Counsel for respondent No.S. Perused the entire record' 2. The instant Writ Petition has been Iiled challenging the Assessment Order passed by the Income Tax Authorities under Section 147 read with Section l44B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as \"the Act\") dated 29.02.2024 for the Assessment Year 2016-17 ' 3. One of the contentions that the petitioner has raised in the present Writ Petition is that under the arnended provisions of the Act which carne into effect from OI.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 2 assessee. As per the arnended 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 Jurisdictional Assessing Oflicer. In respect ol the said objection that the petitioner had raised, he relied upon the recent batch of rvrit petitions decided by this ver1. Bench on L4.O9.2023 vide W.P.No.259O3 of 2022 and. bartch to the limited extent. 4 . Learned counsel for the Department ,,vould not dispute of having decided the said objection in the aforesaid batch matters. However, learnerl 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 respondent-Department is concerned, this Bench, while disposing o[ said batch of writ petitions, had taken note of the same at paragraph Nos.37 & 3g which are reproduced herein under: 3 I t \"37. TIE prelimindry objection raised by the petittoner is sustained and all these u-trit petitions stands alloued on fhis uery jurisdictional issue. Since tte impugned notices ond orders are getting quashed on tle point of jurisdiction, u)e are not inclined to proceed furtLer and decide tle other i.ssues raised bg the petitioner uhich stands reserued to be raised and contended in an appropiate procceding s. \" '38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in th.e case of Ashkh Agaruta supra, as a one-time measure exercising the pouers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, permitted tlrc Reuenue to proceed under the substituted prouisions, and this Court allouing the petitions only on the procedural flaut, the ight confened on the Reuenue uould remain reserued to proceed further if tLeg so u-tant from the stage of the order of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashi-sh Agaruto supra.\" 6. In view of the szune, we are inclined to a'llow the present writ peLition also on similar terms. Accordingly' the present Writ Petition stands allowed on the objection of the petitioner that the proceedings have not been drarvn in accordance with the arnended provision Lrut under the un-amended pro rision which is otherwise not sustainable. As has been held by this Bench in the aforesaid batch matters, the rights of the parties would stand reserved as is envisaged at pa-ragraph Nos.37 & 38 of the said order passed in the said batch of writ petitions. No order as to 4 costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shali stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/.V.KAVITHA ASSrsrANr *[t.llo* SECTIO( OFFICER To, 6 7 B I TJ SB 1. 2. 3 4 ffiffim+*fgqffiH#ffig.*fl,l*'ffi 3t{:*rru^slE:l;ff s:ti,sfiiiifiiqs\"fiitff'ff ;':;\"\"\"' On'e CC to Sri Thanneru uni Bffi BB B u;,: .Tsrn ffiffi 'dq*ffffit-}i+izu \"', Two CD CoPies I I @ I I I : i I I I HIGH COURT DATED:1210312024 ORDER WP.No.6343 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS. T 1 6 ilAY 202{ i E SIr, ro -( o t) 2: a .? J O O DcI]PA TT C\"qrl> oi+ I I :l I I l ' "