Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -2 V. M/s. GVK Energy Ltd.

ITTA/60/2021

AI Insights

The case involved an appeal by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -2, Hyderabad against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad. The appeal was related to the assessment year 2015-16 and stemmed from an earlier decision by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 2, Hyderabad. The primary legal contention revolved around procedural compliance under the Income Tax Act, particularly concerning the issuance of notices and the opportunity for a hearing as mandated by the amended provisions of Section 148A. However, the dispute was rendered moot following the respondent's settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2023, a government initiative aimed at resolving pending tax disputes.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 731599 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 16-12-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: W.P.No.30153 of 2023, W.P.No.25903 of 2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K PRABHAVATI
• Assessee Lawyers: SUNDARI R PISUPATI
• Keywords: Assessment Year 2015-16; Income Tax; Infructuous appeal; Settlement; Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme
• Section: 151; 148A(d); 260-4

Judgement Text

"[337s]k! IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD SATURDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY oF DECETVIBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO:60 OF 2O21 lncpme Tax Tribunar Appear Under section 260-4 of the rncome Tax Act, against the order of the lncome Tax Appeflate Tribunar, Hyderabad Bench'B', Hyderabad in i. lrA No. 9251H12o19 for assessment year 2015-16 dated 25.03.2021, preferreo dl., against the order of the commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals) - 2 Hyderabad, in Appeal No.1036612o17-18lclr(A)-2 dated 22.03.2019, preferred against the order of the Deputy Commissioner of lncome tax, Circle 2(2) , Hyde@bad, in pANiGlR No.AADCG2348H dated 05.12.2011 . Between: Pr. Commissioner of lncome Tax -2, Hyderabad. AND ...Appetlant Ml:.^cJ[ E_lqr.Sy !9._, # 156-159, pa(;ah, Sardar patet Road, Secunderabad - 500 003, PAN. AADCG23ZISH ...Respondent IANO:1Of2 o23 Pe{ition under Section 1S1 of CpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support or the petition, the High court m\"v -le pleased to permit the Petitioner to fire the above documenrs and pass an order taking into consideration the setflement opted by the petitionercno \"on.\"ar\"ni Form 5 issued by the Department. Counsel for the Appellant : M/S. Sundari R pisupati, Senior SC for lncome Tax Dept Counsel for the Respondent : M/s. K. prabhavati The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT ffi j { j t.,'o*. '!a;.'flk, ' I J t 'jr ':.?e:. i .*.,' ii THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TI'KARAMJI JUDGMENT:(per Hon'ble Sri Justice p.SAM KOSHY) . When the matter is taken up for hearing today, it has been informed by the learned counsel for the appellant that the assessee pending this appeal before this Court has settled the dispute under the Vivad SE Vishwas Scheme, 2023 and. as such the dispute does not survive any longer. 2. In view of the same, the instant appeal stalds disposed of as having become infructuous. 3. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any in this appeal, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. SD/. M.VIJAYA BHASKER JOINT s //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER; To, $ffi: i i.4 t i.l '1. The lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, Bench ,B', Hyderabad. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 2 Hyderabad. 3. The Deputy Commissioner of lncome tax, Cicte 212,1, Hyderabad. 4. One CC to M/S. Sundari R pisupati, Senior 'Sb for lncome Tax Dept, Advocate [QPUC] 5. One CC to M/s. K. Prabhabati, Advocate [OpUC] 6. Two CD Copies njb/* (ALONG WITH A COPY OF ORDER DATED 30.10.2023 PASSED BY THIS COURT lN W.P.No.30153 of 2023 ) $ cw *i#*, I.T.T.A.No.6O OF 2O21 1 1ig^ HIGH COURT DATED:1611212023 JUDGMENT lTTA.No.60 o12021 DISPOSING OF THE ITTA AS INFRUCTUOUS T HE sle 16. ffi; )'r ), z o -[ c ,J 0 E titAH 2024 ,--\"..r-itl . .+ ?, ... rO * ,l +l ffiffi s' tt ti ;i& rf _- @uF;',)tv ----=---._aF I !'i ..'; ,'i THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY A}ID THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY W.P. No. 3O153 of 2023 ORI)ER:1per ao n'bte Si Justice p.SA KOs,Hfl) ' Heard Mr. A.V.A. Siva Kartikeya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. B. Sapna Reddy, learned Junior Standing Counsel for Income Tax appearing for the respondents. perused the entire record. 2. The instant petition has been filed challenging the Assessment Order passed by respondent No. 1 under section l48A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as..the Act\") dated 25.04.2022 for the Assessment Year 20 l8- 19. 3. One of the contentions that the petitioner has raised in the present writ petition is that under the amended provisions of the Act which came into effect from O 1.O4.2O2 l, 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. Whereas, it has been contended by the petitioner that in the instant case, reopening has been initiated by the Juridictional Assessing Officer. In respect of the said objection that the petitioner had raised, he relied upon the recent batch of writ 2 petitions decided by this very Bench on 14.O9 .2023 vide W.P.No.259O3 of 2022 and batch to the limited extent. 4. Learned counsel for the Department would not dispute of batch matters. having decided the said objection in the aforesaid However, learned counsel submits that apart from the aforesaid objection, there have been other various objections a_lso which the petitioner has raised in the writ petition. 5. So far as this contention of the learned counsel for the Department is concerned, this Bench, while disposing of W.P.No.259O3 of 2022 and batch had taken note of the sarne in paragraph Nos.37 & 38 which is reproduced herein under: \"37. Tl]e preliminary objection raised by the petitioner is sustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed on this very jurisdic$onal issue. Since the impugned notices and orders are getting quashed on the point ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further and decide the other issues raised by the petitioner which stands reserved to be raised and contended in an appropriate proceedings. \" 34. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the case ofAshish Agarwal, supra, as a one-time measure exercising the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, permitied the Revenue to proceed under the substituted provisions, and this Cou-rt allowing the petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right conferred on the Revenue would remain reserved to proceed further if they so want from the stage of the order of the Supreme Court in the case ofAshish Agarwa-I, supra. 6. In vieiu of the same, we are inclined to allow the present writ petilion 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 unamended provision which is otherwise not sustainable. 3 As has been held by this Bench in the aforesaid batch matters, the right of the respondents would stand reserved as is envisaged in paragraph Nos.37 & 38 ofthe said batch. No order as to costs' 7. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. P.SAM KOSHY, J LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHET'IY' J Dated: 30.lO.2O23 aqs "