null V. null

WP/7955/2024

AI Insights

The case involves a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging an order passed by the 1st Respondent under sections 147, 144, and 148 of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2015-16. The petitioner argued that the order was arbitrary, illegal, and violated several provisions of the Act, including sections 148D, 149, and 151A, as well as a circular issued by the CBDT. The court examined whether the reopening of the assessment was conducted in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act, which require issuing a notice under section 148A and conducting proceedings in a faceless manner. The court referenced a previous judgment where similar jurisdictional issues were addressed, leading to the decision to allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 798636 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Wp.No.25903 of 2022 & batch, dated 14.09.2023
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Section 147 of the Act, Section 144 of the Act, Section 148 of the Act, Section 149 of the Act, Section 151A of the Act
• Result in Favour of: Applicant
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: V K PUNNA
• Assessee Lawyers: A V RAGHURAM
• Keywords: Arbitrary; Faceless Proceedings; Illegal; Jurisdictional issue; Violation of provisions; Void ab initio; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 149; 151A; 226

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT FOR THE STATF ()F TEI -^^r^ { 3379 ] r\"o\";;i ALE,ij j:lfj::,ili Ar HvDERABAo WEDNESDAY, THE TV '*o,i o ubxill_Bffi llTilJr.f MARCH PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI J.USflCE P.SAM KOSHY rHE H.N,BLE \"*, .frI.'r,.u N.T,KARAMJT WRIT PETITloNNo.79s50F 2024 p,*:,i:XSi,e,Ei.!,iyl1,?lAf Eil\"*i:,{tlXtl}Ifi l;,*g?g\"3::,,r:1,ff :i1 Between: AND 1 ...PETITtONER ,ffi:i#j{\"ilf, ,s,,il:;ifl :fi1q,?:\"a.]i::1Jf ?::,?,.t?:\"fl R,Iil ISi,gBBlE ffi,?lii:l#,il1il,;\"fl ,T?;flx';iti;lt11y,iffi 1.,, o,o 2 ...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 pass an order or direction, especia,y one in the nature of wRrr oF MANDAMUS hording that the order passed by 1st Respondent u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 r'w's .r448 of rhe Act, dt.21to2t2024 wirh D{N No:,rBA/AST/S t14712023_ 2411061257032(1) for the Ay_2015-16, as arbitrary. i,egal, bad in law, void ab initio' apart from being viorative of provisions of section 14g.E and section 149 of the Act and arso contrary to the circurar issued by .BDT and provisions of section 151A of the Act, and consequen y set aside the order passed by 1St ResPondent a s 147 r.w.s 144 r'w's 144f, of the Act' dt'21t)212}24 with DIN No:ITBA/AST/S I 1 47 t2023-241 1061 257032(1 ) consequential proceedings pursuant thereto' for the AY 201 5-16 and all tA 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 uls'147 r'w's 144 r'w's 1448 of the Act' dL211}212024 with Dl N No-ITBA/AST/ S I 1 47 t 2023-24 t 1 061 257 032(1) fo r the Ay'20 1 5-1 6' Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A' V' RAGHU RAM counselfor the Respondents: SRI vuHAYf HHTfuo*. t* The Court made the foltowing: ORDER THE ITON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE TION'BLE SRI WSTICE N.TI'I(ARAMJI WRIT PETITTON No.7955 oF 2024 ORDER:(per Hon'ble Sn Justice P.SAll[ KOSHY) The instant Writ Petition has been hled by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the following relief: \"...plea.sed to pass an order or direction especiallu one in ile nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS hnldinq that the order pa-ssed bq 1st Respondent u/ s 147 r tu s 144 r u s 1448 o.f the Act dt.21/ 02/ 2024 utth DIN No:ITBA,/AST/ S/ 147/2023-24/ 1061257032 1 for the Au 2O15-16 as arbitraru illeqal bad in low uoid ab initio aport from being uiolatiue of prouisions of section 148 D ond iection 149 of tLe Act and also contronl to tle ciranlar issued bu CBDT and prouisions of section 1514 of the Act and consequentlu set oside tLe order pa'ssed bu lSt Respondent a s 147 r u s 144 r u s 1448 of the Act dt.21/ 02/ 2024 with DIN No:ITBA/AST/ S/ 147/202324/ 10612570321 for tLe Au 2015-16 and all conseEtential proeedings pursuant thereto and Pass...\" 2. Heard Mr. A. V. Raghu Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vrjhay K Punna, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax for respondents and Perused the record. 2 3. One of the contentions ttrat the petitioner has raised in the present Writ petition is that under the amended provisions of the Act which czune into effect from OL.O4.2O2l, the respondents, while proceeding under Section 148 of the Act, were required to issue notice under Section l48A 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 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.2S9O3 of 2022 & batch, dated 14.O9.2023 wherein this Court disposed of the batch of writ petitions to the limited extent. 5 responden t-Department objection was decided On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the does not dispute that ttre said in the aforesaid batch of Writ Petitions. However, he further contended that apart from the 3fep652l4 objection, there have been other various 3 objections also which the petitioner has raised in the writ petition. 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 & 38 which are reproduced herein under: 1 i!r_ rP prglimiyary objection raised by the petitioner ts sustained and. aII these wit petitrons lfanas allowed on .this uery jurisdtcttonal..issie. S;no ti-impugnea notrces and orders are gening q\"\"ia \"iri tpoint o1 lurisdictiory u)e are not tn61in\"aj 1l-o-Zl.i ifnLr rro decide the otfter rssues rai.sed by the petirionei which stands reserued to be ,\",i*-iJ*^l::'_\"\"1.: . opp*paoi-pr&\"ir,S\"\".Po\"d and contended in an \"t ) ) 7. In present present vrew of the same, w, writ petition also on \"r.t *\" inclined to allow the writ petition stands \"rr,n\"* terms' Accordingry, the lwed on the objection of the 4 petitioner that tl.e proceedings have not been drawn in accordance with the amended provision but under the un-amended provision which is otherwise not sustainable. 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 ba-tch of u'rit petiticns' llo order as to costs' Consequently, miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed' /TTRUE COPY\" MP GJP ^?'J,,1ffi3r%'JJ SECTIOi OFFICER pending, if any, ' lllf iliilfi i :Y:'#itr'-f [$, ffi :'::ffi: , ig*Pr\"S tl :f\"1 i'T--Y''\"\"'1# ffi [Ti: ' o\"' \"\"'\"\": Y**:::xil 5l::j:::':::\"-\" rax roPucr 4 One CC to SRI VlJl- 5. Two CD Copies s HIGH COURT DATED:2710312024 ytE S 141e 1 ( e 't) le i,J [ 1 iL]il 2024 , l:) ORDER WP.No.7955 of 2024 ALLOWTNG THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS I E-O c T nj W "