Nirmalamba Nitya Boda V. Union of India, Ministry of Finance and Income Tax Officer Ward 15, Hyderabad and Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 4, Hyderabad and The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Income Tax Department

WP/16773/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Nirmalamba Nitya Boda, the petitioner, challenging the legality of a notice and subsequent orders issued by the Income Tax Department under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that these actions were arbitrary, illegal, and violated principles of natural justice and constitutional rights under Articles 14, 19, and 265. The respondents included various authorities from the Income Tax Department and the Ministry of Finance. The court referenced a common order from a batch of writ petitions (W.P.No.25903 of 2022) decided on 14.09.2023, which had similar issues regarding the procedural adherence post the Finance Act, 2021. The court's decision was influenced by the need to adhere to the procedural requirements set by the Finance Act, 2021, and the Supreme Court's directives, leading to the quashing of the impugned notices and orders.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 821780 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 12-07-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Ashish Agarwal
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Finance Act, 2021, Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: B MUKHERJEE; B REDDY
• Assessee Lawyers: P RAO
• Keywords: Arbitrary order; Income Tax; Legal Notice; Mandamus; Natural Justice; Principles of law; Writ petition
• Section: 148; 14; 19; 148A(d); 265

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) fRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL TH E H o No URABLE sRI I usTIcATTITvIAVARAP U RAJ ES HWAR RAo [ 3411 ] ...PETITIONER , WRIT PETITtoN NO: 1677 3 0F 2024 Between: Nirmalamba Nitya Boda, D/o. Busrness, H.NO.2-1g Pan AIOPB'1S20E Gopal, Rao Talatam. Aged About 50 years, Occ: Janronagar, Uppal. Hyderabad'ZOOl2 AND 1 2 3 Union of India, IV{inistrv of Finance Rep.by its Secretary, .166-8 Nodh Block NewDelhi- 1 1000 1. lncome Tax Officer Ward 15 .l Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad Principal Commissioner Of lncome f ax 4,lT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad The Nationar Faceress Assessment centre, rncome Tax Department Minrstry 4 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to i. rssue a writ, order or Direction more particurarry, one, in the nature of writ of Mandamus, dec'raring the order passed by the Respondent No.2 in passing the order dated 06/0412022 urs. 148A(d) and Notice issued by the Respondent No.2 under sectionl48 0f the rncome Tax Act,1g61, arso dated.0610412022 as iilegar, arbitrary, bad in raw, void abinitio, viorative of the principles of. naturar justice and being viorative of Articres 14,19 and 265 of the constitution of rndia and consequenfly, ii. set aside the order dated 0610412022 u/s' 14BA(d) and Notice issued by the RespondentNo.2 under sectionl4g of the .lncome.Tax Act,'1g61 dated.0610412o22 caring for the return of income of the i.,:,1]:1:^r-for AY 2O1S-16 and any consequent proceedings as tacking in JUnSOrctton. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. SRIKANTH RAO ', Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI B. MUKHERJEE REPRESENTING FOR SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, Dy. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No.2 to 4: Ms. B. SAPNA REDDY, JR. SC FOR INCOME TAX The Court made the following: ORDER 7 I THE IIONOURABLE SRl JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HOITOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WR.IT PETITION No.16773 OF 2024 ORDER: (per Hon'ble Justice Sujog I'aul) Heard Sri P. Srikanth Rao, iearned counsel for the petitioner(s), Ms.B.Sapna Reddy, learned Junior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department, for the respondent(s)- Income Tax Department and Sri B' Mukherjee, learned counsel representing Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, for the respondent(s)- Central Government. 2. The ground taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner(s) is that in furtherance of Finance Acl, 2O2l' re- assessment process stood modihed but the respondents have not takerl care of it and therefore notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. Since notice is bad in 1aw, the consequential orders are also bad in law. 3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the parties agreed that curtains on this issue are finally drawn by this Court in a batch of writ petitions, W.P.No.259O3 of 2022 and other connected matters, decided by co'mmon order I 2 dated. 14.09.2O23. The parties agreed that this matter may be disposed of in terms of the Common Order dated l4'O9'2O23' 4. This Court in thc said order dated 14-O9 2023 in W.P.No.259O3 ol 2022, held as under: .35. In vienr of the aforesaial discussioss' lt is by low very clear that the proc€dure to be follos/ed by tie respondent- DepertEeot uPoD treatrBg the dotices issued fol 'eassesslaeEt beiag under Sectlon 148A, the subsequeEt ptoccedings was daodatorily required to bG uadertaLen undet the substituted provlsions as laid dowE uoder the FitraEce Act,2O2l' lE the abse[ce of t hich, we are con6tralned to hold that the procedule adopted by th€ respoEdetlt'DepartEeEt is iE coEtravedtiotr to the statute i.e. tte Firleace Act' 2O2l' at the flrst lDstaoce. Secondly, it is also itr dilect contraveatron to the directrves issued by the Hoa,ble SupreEe C'urt i[ the case of Ashish Agarc,al, supra' 36. For sll the aforcseld reasons, the iopugned notlc€s iEsued add tbe p.oceedings drawo by the respoldent-Depattroeut is aelther teoable, aor sustaiaable. The [otlces so issued aad the procedure adopted being per se ill€tal, deserves to be aad are accordingly set aside/quashed. As a conseque[ce, all the iBpugred orders getting quashed, the consequeatlal orders passed by the resPoadent Departrxe[t pursudnt to the notices issued under Sectlotr 147 and 148 would also get quashed and it is ordered accordinglr/. The reason lre are quashlng the coEsequetrtial order is on the principles thet ehetl the initiatiofl of the Ptocecdings itseu wal procedurally wront, the subsequeat oidels also gets nullified autoDetlcally. 97. The prelimirary obiection raised by the petluouer is susteined atrd alt these writ Petitions staods allosed o! this very jurisdlctioaal issue. si.oce tte fuapugr€d rotlces ard ordeaE ate gettilg quashed on the point ofjurrsdlction, s'e are not lEclined to ploceed furtler atrd decide t\"he other issues raised by the petitioaer which stands teserved to be raised and coEteDded in aD apPropriate proceedings. 38. Sirce the Hontle SuPre&e Court had, ilr the case of Ashish Agarwat, supra, as a otre_tiEe !1easulc exetclsi[g the powers uader Article 142 of ttre Coastitutior of India, / 3 To, p€rmitted the Revcnue to proceed uider the substituted provisions, aad this Crurt allowing tbe petitions only on the plocedural flaw, the right coaferred on the Revelue would rerrairi reseived to proceed furth€r if they so Fant frod the staBe of the orde. of the Supreae Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra. 39. No order as to costs.\" 5 In view of the consensus arrived, the impugled Show Cause notice arld consequential orders passed in this writ petition are set aside. Liberty is reserved to both the parties to take respective stand and to proceed in accordarce with law as per paragraph No,38 of the order dated 14.09.2O23 in w.P.No.259o3 oftzdzz. 6. The writ petition is allowed. No costs. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. SDI T. JAYASREE //TRUE COpy// ASSISTAIf, REGISTRAR sEciior.r oFFrcER The 9ecretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Finance 166-8 North Block, NewDethi- 1 10001 . lncome Tax Officer Ward l5 1 Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad Principal Commissioner Of lncome Tax 4, lT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Income Tax Department Ministry of Finance Govt. of lndia, New Delhi One CC to SRI P. SRIKANTH RAO, Advocate toPUCI one cc to Ms. B. sApNA REDDY, JR. SC FOir tNCCi[/E TAX IOPUC] One CC to SRI GAD| PRAVEEN KUMAR, Dy. SOLICITOR GEt iERAt bF rNDrA [OPUC] Two CD Copies BN GJP 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 cflf- / HIGH COURT DATED:1 2107 12024 ORDER WP.No.16773 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS YtE Sf^ r{: 1 o () ll 0[T ^\" { O€'S,,n TCiio-, r$h "