Prakruthi Nivas Welfare Association, Regd. No.7 of 2010 (PRANIWA) V. The National Faceless Assessment Center, Income Tax Department, New Delhi, India and Income Tax Officer, Ward 10(1), Hyderabad and The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, New Delhi

WP/7330/2024

AI Insights

The case involves the Prakruthi Nivas Welfare Association challenging the reassessment order and related notices issued by the Income Tax Department. The petitioner argued that the reassessment and notices were issued under the unamended provisions of the law, which do not comply with the current requirements for faceless assessments and hearings. The respondents, including the National Faceless Assessment Center and the Income Tax Officer, defended the actions taken under the old provisions. The court referenced a previous batch of writ petitions with similar jurisdictional issues, where it was decided that the notices and orders were quashed due to procedural flaws. The court's decision in this case followed the precedent set in the earlier batch, allowing the writ petition on the grounds of jurisdictional non-compliance.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 798672 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 20-03-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Ashish Aganval case
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, Section 151 CPC
• Result in Favour of: Applicant
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: VIJHAY PUNNA; B MUKHARJEE
• Assessee Lawyers: M NAGA DEEPAK
• Keywords: Faceless assessment; Jurisdictional issue; Procedural Flaw; Reassessment order; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 148; 151; 148A(d)

Judgement Text

"[ 337s ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRI T PETITION NO: 7330 OF 2024 Between: Prakruthi Nivas Welfare Association, Regd. No.7 of 2010 (PRANIWA), Annaram Village, Gummadidala Mandal, Sangareddy Dist - 5023'13 Rep. by its President Samala Devender Reddy, S/o. Samala Narsa Reddy, Aged about 44 Years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No. 6-85/883 P-4, Prakruthi Nivas, Annaram' sangareddy ...pETrroNER AND 1. The National Faceless Assessment Center, lncome{ax Department, New Delhi, lndia. 2. lncome Tax Officer, Ward 10 ('l), Hyderabad 3. The Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department Ministry of Finance Government of lndia' New Delhi ...REspoNDENTs Petition under Article 226 ot lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring order under Section 14BA(d) dated 15-04-2022 bearing DIN ITBA/AST/F/'148N2O22-2311042746610(1) the consequent notice dated 15-04- 2022 uls. 148 bearing DIN ITBA/AST|S|148 112022-2311042746989(1) and the consequent Reassessment order dated 29-12-2023 bearing DIN ITBA/AST/S/14712023-241105917982(1) as being void, illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, violate of Article 14 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently set aside the same. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section '151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed rn support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including collection of tax pursuant to the Reassessment order dated 29- 1 2-2023 bearing Dl N ITBA/AST I S I 1 47 12023 - 24 I 1 O59 1 7 982(1 ). Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M.NAGA DEEPAK Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI VIJHAY K.PUNNA, SENIOR SC FOR ITD Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI B.MUKHARJEE FOR SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, Dy. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAIVI KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.733O OF 2024 ORDER:per Hon'ble Si Justice P.SAM KOSHY) Heard Sri M.Naga Deepak, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vij ay K. Punna, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department for respondent Nos.l and 2; and Sri B.Mukharjee, learned counsel representing Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, for respondent No.3. Perused the material on record. 2. The instant Writ Petition has been frled by the petitioner under Articl e 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief; \"...to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of lwit of mandamus declaring order under Section 148A(d), dated 15.O4.2O22 bearing DIN No.ITBA/AST lF I r48Al 2022-23 I toa27466tO(rl t}:e consequent notice, dated 15.O4 .2022 under Seciton Aa bearing DIN No.ITBA/AST/S/148 1 12022- 23 /1042746989(1) and the consequent Reassessment order, dated 29.12.2023 bearing DIN No.ITBA/AST/ Sll47 12023-241105917982(1) as being void, illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, violate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and pass...\" !-r -'.nrqq l-- .' 2 PSK,J&,MTR,J W.P.No.733O o;f 2O24 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 cuune into effect from Ol .O4.2021 , the respondents, while proceeding under Section 148 of the Act, were required to issue notice under Section 148,,4. 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.259O3 of 2022 & batch, dated 14.O9.2023 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 PSK,J d6 lUfR,J W.P.No.7330 of 2024 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: \"37. The preliminary objection raised bg the petitioner is sustained and all these utrtt petitions stands allouted on this uery juisdictional issue. Since the impugned notices and orders are getting quashed on the point of jurisdiction, LUe are not inclined to proceed further and decide the other lssues raised by the petitioner uthich stands reserued to be raised and contended in erl approprtate proceediftg s. \" \"38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the case of Ashish Aganaa| supra, as a one-time measure exercising the potuers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, pennitted the Reuenue to proceed under the substituted prouisions, and this Court allouing the petitions onlg on the procedural flaw, the right conferred on the Reuenue utould remain reserue.d to proceed further if theg so want from the stage of tlrc order of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Aganoal, supra.\" 7 . In view of the szune, we are inclined to allow the present writ petition a,lso on similar terms. Accordingly, the 4 PSK,J & MTR,J W.P.No.733O of 2O24 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 otherwise not sustainable 8. As has been held by this Bench in the aforesaid batch matters, the right 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 9. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if aly sha1l stand closed' sD/-A.v.s. pRAsAD ASSISTANTEEGIS;TRAR //TRUE coPY// Ny' SECTIOI.I OFFICER The National Faceless Assessment Center, lncome{ax Department' New To 7 PSK. BS 1 2 a 4 5 b Delhi, lndia lncome Tax Officer, Ward 10(1), Hyderabad in\" Ais\".\"r.nt Unit lncome Tax Department, Ministry of Finance, Government of lndia, New Delhi One CC to SRI M.NAGA DEEPAK, Advocate [OPUQ.- il; cc io SCiVtLHnv K PUNNA; sENloR Sc foB l-TD toP-uc-l- . ^- 6;; aa i\" Sni cAol PRAVEEN KUMAR, Dv. sollclroR GENERAL oF rNDrA [OPUC] Two CD CoPies HIGH COURT DATED:20103t2024 ORDER WP.No.7330 ot 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS. 4 ( ( c r-) t APn 202f 1HE S hr o 6 o 5 gO PA * * TcH 02 9 "